by David Gonzales, 5 months ago
Some interesting bits of news about the rumored Samsung Galaxy Note 3, as well as the upcoming Samsung Galaxy S4, have surfaced online courtesy of a recent Korea Times report. The report discusses Samsung’s upcoming…
Samsung’s Galaxy smartphone line has always been primarily about diversity, variety and choice, but things are getting a bit out of hand lately. Not only is Sammy blurring the lines between mid-range and high-end and diluting the “Galaxy” brand in the process, but when it comes to entry-level devices everything is just too tangled to tell right from left.
If we are to trust SamMobile (and we usually do), a so-called Galaxy Pocket Neo is currently being worked on in Samsung’s labs and getting prepared for a mid-may release. Besides the baffling name, the little guy is to stir up quite some confusion, as it’s likely to be officially introduced close to a Galaxy Pocket Plus.
The Pocket Plus is rumored to carry the GT-S5301 model number, while the Neo is also known as the GT-S5310 or GT-S5312 (the latter for the dual-SIM version). Both phones are rehashes of last year’s Galaxy Pocket (aka S5300), which honestly is too much to take in for me.
But maybe you can easily tell the three apart based on their spec sheets, right? Only you can’t. The original Pocket came with a 2.8-inch 240 x 320 pix res screen, an 832 MHz ARM 11 CPU, a 2 MP cam and Android 2.3.
The Pocket Plus is said to pack an identical display, an 850 MHz Cortex A9-based processor and Android 4.0 ICS. Finally, the Pocket Neo is to come with a 3-inch 240 x 320 panel, the same pesky 2 MP camera and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. I really think my head is going to explode any minute now!
Thankfully, there is one scenario where Samsung is only mildly insane with all these ever so slightly different entry-level devices. And that is the Pocket Plus and Pocket Neo turn out to be the exact same phone. After all, the only differences we know of at this time are the on-board software, display size and model numbers, all of which could have been easily confused by the “sources in the know”. Please, oh please, let it be so!