Insider Sources Suggest 'No [Galaxy S3] Leaks Have Been Accurate'; Plus More Intel

[dgstorm]

We have several pieces of interesting Samsung Galaxy S III news for you today. We will hit you with the most interesting tidbit first. According to an insider source within Samsung, the security for the new SGS3 has been the tightest it has ever been for any product in the history of the company. Furthermore, this source indicated that the newest supposed leaked pics of the mythic device are nothing but generic test boxes. The source elaborated, "That's not even close to the final design. No leaks of the final design have been accurate." In fact, security is so tight that this source would/could not even confirm that the device will actually be called the Galaxy S III, and that Samsung is only using the phrase "next Galaxy" to describe what will be revealed on May 3rd.

The second morsel of SGS3 news is that another insider source (possibly the same one from above) supposedly confirmed for The Verge that this "next Galaxy" will indeed come with a quad-core Exynos processor. There had been some speculation that the next SGS3 would simply come with a more advanced dual-core Exynos, but if this intel turns out to be accurate, then Samsung opted for the four core instead (probably because the quad-core chips are getting all the marketing hype right now). Additionally, the source of this info indicated that this new chip will achieve "...superlative benchmark performance." Of course, we would expect no less from the next Galaxy successor.

Our third bit of news is really just a bit of "Sherlock Holmes-style" deductive investigating from a curious user. This amateur detective went to a lot of trouble to come to the conclusion that Samsung may still be heavily considering the simple but probably effective Samsung Galaxy S III name for this next device. Here's a quote from Phandroid with the details,

And, while there’s been some talk that the Samsung “Galaxy S III” title hasn’t been officially set it stone, one of our readers did a little sleuthing around and found an interesting late night tidbit on Samsung’s official site. Seems if you jump to SAMSUNG's Digital World the URL will be formatted and forwarded to a new address, in which the URL will eventually take you to the typical “Page Not Found” message. What’s interesting is that if you try something a little more crazy and totally off the wall, like http://www.samsung.com/galaxysyomomma you’ll notice that a new page is present but different from the previous one. No formatting. No forwarding. Nothing.

We’ve seen this little technique of vanity URL’s used in the past when trying to figure out if a device has been officially confirmed. Yes, I know this isn’t much to go on — if really anything at all — but at the very least we know Samsung is clearly considering going with the Galaxy S III title, and even has a URL already set up for it. Still, it’s very possible they could go with “the next Galaxy” or even “Galaxy III,” all will be revealed come May 3rd. In the meantime, sweet GSIII dreams, my friends.

This last bit of "rumint" seems to be the shakiest of all, but is still worth pondering. What do you guys think of all this nebulous data?

Source: TheVerge and Phandroid

 

[metalspring]

the SAMSUNG's Digital World web address linked is misspelled? http://www.samsung.com/us/glaxy-s-iii
changing it to http://www.samsung.com/us/galaxy-s-ii also gives the page not found error when it should bring up the galaxy s II shouldnt it?
and just changing it to http://www.samsung.com/us/galaxysII will give you the link to the galaxy s II but http://www.samsung.com/us/galaxysIII does bring up the page not found error

Edit- i didnt realize it would auto-link those addresses lol, i guess everyone can check and confirm what i saw with this

edit 2- ahh now i see what they meant with this...http://www.samsung.com/galaxysyomomma brings up the visit your country site, http://www.samsung.com/galaxysII brings you to the site for the Galaxy S2 but http://www.samsung.com/galaxysIII brings you to http://www.samsung.com/us/glaxy-s-iii ...odd that samsung would misspell galaxy unless its intentional?

 

[johnomaz]

I'm holding out until May 3rd. The S3 (or whatever its finalized to be) may get me off of Verizon. I dropped AT&T almost 2 years ago for Verizon but if Verizon is going to throttle my speeds at the 2gig mark, why bother with unlimited. Plus, I have never gone above 2gigs anyways. I have wifi nearly everywhere I go. Service wise, AT&T and Verizon are very similar in my area so I won't be losing reception or anything. To me, the hardware is more important than the carrier.

 

[cybertec69]

I'm holding out until May 3rd. The S3 (or whatever its finalized to be) may get me off of Verizon. I dropped AT&T almost 2 years ago for Verizon but if Verizon is going to throttle my speeds at the 2gig mark, why bother with unlimited. Plus, I have never gone above 2gigs anyways. I have wifi nearly everywhere I go. Service wise, AT&T and Verizon are very similar in my area so I won't be losing reception or anything. To me, the hardware is more important than the carrier.

The carrier is more importand than the hardware when it comes to a phone and coverage area, you make no sense.



Sent from my ADR6425LVW using DroidForums

 

[HNettles]

The carrier is more importand than the hardware when it comes to a phone and coverage area, you make no sense.

I have to agree. Without good coverage and a reliable network, your phone is nothing more than a glorified iPod Touch.

 

[jpiarull]

I'm holding out until May 3rd. The S3 (or whatever its finalized to be) may get me off of Verizon. I dropped AT&T almost 2 years ago for Verizon but if Verizon is going to throttle my speeds at the 2gig mark, why bother with unlimited. Plus, I have never gone above 2gigs anyways. I have wifi nearly everywhere I go. Service wise, AT&T and Verizon are very similar in my area so I won't be losing reception or anything. To me, the hardware is more important than the carrier.

Have to agree with cybertec and hnettles, it don't matter how fast or souped-up your device is, don't matter how fast your network is, if you cannot hold a 50% coverage strength indicator on your phone at the very MINIMUM, forget it, might as well throw that piece-of-you-know-what into the river. As for data throttling at 2 Gigs when you're on unlimited...that makes absolutely no sense, you DO NOT get throttled if you hit 3 gigs and above when you're on unlimited, that does not happen, you would not have unlimited service if they throttle you when you pay $30/month for that, that's false advertising and absolutely illegal, I've taken legal classes involving business, commerce, and contract law, I understand what those contracts stipulate. If you were one of those lucky customers to be grandfathered in, like me, complain, and send them a screen shot of what amounts of data you use, check your Invoice from Verizon from the previous 3 or 4 billing cycles. If you're on 2GB/$30/month, and you go beyond what data amount you are supposed to be allotted, MUCH different story, then Verizon has every right to throttle you, it's their network infrastructure, and you are going beyond contract terms, they should enforce that, otherwise everyone else who abides to terms (within reasonable standards), gets screwed.

 

[justin82]

I'm holding out until May 3rd. The S3 (or whatever its finalized to be) may get me off of Verizon. I dropped AT&T almost 2 years ago for Verizon but if Verizon is going to throttle my speeds at the 2gig mark, why bother with unlimited. Plus, I have never gone above 2gigs anyways. I have wifi nearly everywhere I go. Service wise, AT&T and Verizon are very similar in my area so I won't be losing reception or anything. To me, the hardware is more important than the carrier.

you on unlimeted? - proof your being throttled ?. my last month usage on my line was 14 gig and wifes was 20 gig no throttling going on ..

everyone says there being throttled but i have seen no proof of it .. would love to be proved wrong

 

[geoff5093]

Have to agree with cybertec and hnettles, it don't matter how fast or souped-up your device is, don't matter how fast your network is, if you cannot hold a 50% coverage strength indicator on your phone at the very MINIMUM, forget it, might as well throw that piece-of-you-know-what into the river. As for data throttling at 2 Gigs when you're on unlimited...that makes absolutely no sense, you DO NOT get throttled if you hit 3 gigs and above when you're on unlimited, that does not happen, you would not have unlimited service if they throttle you when you pay $30/month for that, that's false advertising and absolutely illegal, I've taken legal classes involving business, commerce, and contract law, I understand what those contracts stipulate. If you were one of those lucky customers to be grandfathered in, like me, complain, and send them a screen shot of what amounts of data you use, check your Invoice from Verizon from the previous 3 or 4 billing cycles. If you're on 2GB/$30/month, and you go beyond what data amount you are supposed to be allotted, MUCH different story, then Verizon has every right to throttle you, it's their network infrastructure, and you are going beyond contract terms, they should enforce that, otherwise everyone else who abides to terms (within reasonable standards), gets screwed.

Both Verizon and AT&T are throttling grandfathered people with unlimited data plans if they feel they are using an excessive amount of data. It's still unlimited even if it means you can only download at 100Kbps.