Samsung announces Galaxy S III with a focus on natural interaction

Samsung announces Galaxy S III with a focus on natural interaction

Summary: Companies need to differentiate with experiences and initial reactions are that Samsung did just that with the Galaxy S III and a focus on enhancing human-smartphone interactions.

SHARE:

Samsung introduced the world to the Samsung Galaxy S III this morning in London and it looks like the device will be taking on the fantastic HTC One X head-to-head this summer on U.S. wireless carriers. The Galaxy S II is an excellent smartphone that has pleased many consumers and the Galaxy S III will likely continue to please with advances in both hardware and software.

The hardware doesn't look to be revolutionary when compared to the Galaxy Nexus, but launching with a much better camera alone makes me want to replace my Galaxy Nexus already.

See also: Samsung unveils Galaxy S III phone with quad-core, Android ICS | CNET's Hands-on First Take Photos: Galaxy S III is plastic, powerful |Galaxy S III has ears, eyes just for you

Specifications for the Galaxy S III include:

  • 4.8 inch HD (1280x720) Super AMOLED display
  • Quad-core 1.4 GHz Exynos processor
  • 8 megapixel camera
  • 1.9 megapixel front facing camera
  • Android 4.0 (ICS) with TouchWiz
  • Support for HSPA+ and LTE (varies by market and carrier)
  • WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0, NFC, GPS
  • 2100 mAh battery
  • 16/32/64 GB memory with microSD slot (supports up to 64GB)

There is no pricing or solid availability dates for the U.S., we just hear that it is coming sometime this summer. It will go for sale in Europe on 29 May. Samsung also stated they are bringing wireless charging support, something done years ago by Palm with the Pre. I also had it on my Samsung Droid Charge with the special back cover.

More than just the specifications though is what we see about the experience that Samsung is advertising, such as natural interaction through face detection, motions, language, and more. This is the kind of stuff we have been looking for from these smart mobile devices and I am very interested in trying out the experience.

See also:

You can check out some hands-on coverage of the Galaxy S III at these sites:

This summer will be quite exciting, don't you think?

Topics: Android, Google, Hardware, Mobile OS, Mobility, Samsung, Security, Smartphones

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

71 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • What is "focus on natural interaction"?

    Not being an Andriod user, I can't pull out of the article what makes the phone "focus on natural interaction".
    roteague
    • More importantly, they still offer only pentile matrix display :(

      The quantity of subpixels is the same as in much smaller iPhone screen.

      Maybe Samsung will be finally able to close the gap in pixel density between AMOLED technology and Retina's FFPS (IPS) this autumn or next year.

      Also, Apple's custom five-lens optics system (additional lens to make image sharper near the corners) still stays unique among universal smartphones.

      On the better side, this new SGS III will definitely beat iPhone 4S on integer calculation tests. GPU speeds in question, though. USA's version of the phone was expected to include Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 SoC, which fully catches up with iPhone 4S thanks to Adreno 225 GPU, but for now SGS3 announced to only include Exynos, which has weak Mali GPU.

      Bluetooth 4.0 is also on the new device, as in iPhone 4S.
      DDERSSS
      • More importantly?

        So more important than potential improvements in UI to make using a computing device more natual is the quality of the display?

        Interesting because the Apple community always goes nuts about how gigahertz and pixels are secondary to intuitive UIs and stuff that doesn't fit nicely into a bullet point spec sheet. But here you are telling us that actually, spec sheet is actually more important. It doesn't matter if Samsung creates a more natural UI as long as they have fewer lenses and the quality of their subpixels aren't as good. I guess that explains why you thought iPhone 1, 3G, and 3GS were terrible phones because even though they had a nice UI, the display on those phones were far behind the display on the other high end smartphones of the day. Wait, you DID think those older iPhones were terrible, didn't you? Or back then, did spec sheets not matter as much as UIs?

        I love pointing out the hypocrisy in Apple fanbois.
        toddbottom3
      • No problem with pentile matrix at all

        Most people can't see the different of subpixels vs full pixel. Human eyes actually more sensitive to Luminosity which AMOLED beats normal IPS display. AMOLED saves more power than HD IPS too.

        What Apple's custom five-lens optics? You meant *SONY* last year's optics? Don't know how good or bad SGSIII comparing to IPhone 4S yet so I wouldn't say it's still "unique".
        Samic
      • you have no clue as usual...

        I have one of these Pentile Maxtrix Displsy phones at 4.65 inches and 720P... the thing is gorgeous! Much better looking than the iPhone 4s display.

        And Toddbottom 3 DeRSSS makes stuff up all the time and almost neverhas any evidence to back his claims up... If you look at the Galaxy Nexus Screen you would not know what the fuss was about.
        slickjim
      • Samsung thinks pentile matrices are lame, so they had to come up with ...

        @Samic, @Peter Perry: ... SuperAMOLED [b]Plus[/b] matrices to make honest resolution screens. The problem is that AMOLED technology always lags in terms of pixel density, so they can not manufacture it yet.

        @toddbottom3: yes, more importantly, because screen quality is one of primary quality characteristics. As well as speed and quality of photos/videos.
        DDERSSS
      • Retina - Give it a rest

        Who cares besides you?
        I love the great displays, size, color, view ability, etc.....
        They are so close you have to look for the differences.
        Give it a rest.
        rhonin
      • Samsung itself does not give it a rest: they work on SuperAMOLED+ matrix ..

        @rhonin: ... with honest resolution. Finally, Samsung will catch up after Apple -- even though three years later.
        DDERSSS
      • Are you sure it is Pentile? Bummer.

        They look horrible in general.
        Bruizer
      • Retina is whether the pixels can be individually seen at the usage distance

        If not, and there is no other indication of the technology used, then whether it is RGB or pentile is IRRELEVANT.

        I found a lot of this rubbish written about the Note by people that had not seen it and were just going on raw technology spec.

        Apple made a big deal about 'retina' and now it is out there, we can finally bury this silly discussion, as there are several non-iOS devices with such hi-res displays, and ignore those that are never going to buy the device but just want to be a blog blowfly (Mortein handy anyone?).
        Patanjali
      • Whatever Man

        DeRSSS if you don't read your screen with a loupe then it doesn't matter

        The average user is going to look at the Galaxy Nexus beside the iPhone and notice the awesome colors, black level, and sharpness of the Nexus and that is why Apple doesn't allow anything to be near their phome in the stores.
        slickjim
      • DeRSSS time to read and learn

        This reply is mostly repeated from a previous reply to your pentile rants. Perhaps you didn't see it last time. But read it this time and either provide a counter argument or stop stating your psuedo science about "honest" resolutions.

        The human retina has a lineal density of over 9,000 cones per inch. Assuming an equal number of L/M/S cones that is equivalent to over 3,000 "pixels" per inch. Rather more impressive than 263.5 per inch on the iPad3! So, why call such a puny array after the retina?

        But wait a minute - there isn't an equal number of L/M/S cones. There is a much smaller number of S (blue sensitive) cones. Just like the Samsung pentile panels. So, in this respect, Samsung's AMOLED technology is much more like the retina. What makes you think "honest" rgb is superior to pentile? Have you seen any studies which show better human perception of "honest" rgb panels? I have only heard of studies which show people can't tell the difference.

        My analysis says that evolution has produced a retina which is massively ahead of any display technology man has yet developed. One respect in which it is more advanced is the economical use of different color elements - just like the pentile pixel matrix. Equal number of RGB elements is just what a simple-minded electronics engineer would design. A sophisticated cross-discipline engineer (who understands color perception) would produce something like the retina - with an unequal number of picture elements to match their frequency with their importance in human perception; in other words, what both the human retina and the pentile display have done.

        The fact that tiling the plane with equal number of 3-pixel elements is space-inefficient compared to tiling the plane with 5-pixel elements just makes the pentile solution seem so elegant that it was just meant to be.

        For me, the first panel worthy of being named after the retina will have to have 10 times the lineal density of the current panels. And like the human eye, it will have to be clever about the economic use of individual components to attain its objective (pentile being a first step in this latter direction).

        Anyone who has studied human visual perception knows that it is difficult to predict how we will perceive any particular display (think of optical illusions or the Land effect). That's why I only give credence to blind trials of comparisons. But I would be willing to take a bet that in a well-run blind trial most people, including DeRSSS, would prefer the Samsung displays to those which defile the excellence of the human eye by callling themselves retina displays.
        keith.manning@...
      • Samsung does not agree with your understanding; honest Retina-class ...

        @keith.manning: ... SAMOLED+ display in the works; to debut next year.
        DDERSSS
      • <nt>

        <nt>
        .DeusExMachina.
      • Take your own advice.

        @keith.manning
        You make a good show of knowing what you are talking about, and make a number of jargon-filled talking points, none of which are either germane or accurate.
        The problem with your position is that is it just not accurate. First, you mix together rants about retina displays and pentile displays. They two things have NOTHING to do with each other, and mixing your references provides nothing of any useful value.
        As to your attempts at an argument based on biology, I had to stifle a bit of a laugh. You speak with authority about matters you clearly do not know much about. In bringing up perceptual issues, you have ventured a bit too far into my wheelhouse. My field is neuroscience, and I spent a considerable amount of time studying the neurobiology of vision (and yes, that includes the eye itself, as the retina is actually not a distinct organ, but rather a part of the brain). While a number of your points about the biology of vision are accurate, the suppositions you draw from them are not.
        For instance, cone density, and in particular cone subtype density is totally irrelevant to the argument. Yes, there is a differentiation of the relative densities of the receptor subtypes, but that evolved due to a specific trait of the evolutionary environment, namely the prevalence and importance of certain colours in the visual field. As such, those cone subtype densities are evolved to sample a world with a particular spectrum spread. While you can get away with taking advantage of this to reduce pixel density while simultaneously seeming to increase it, the visual system is NOT designed for a world with this paradigm, and as such, there is a marked difference in apparent image quality between pentile and standard RGB displays. This apparent quality difference, as stated by DeRSS, is exactly why Samsung and others are working feverishly to create the technology necessary to create non-pentile displays. Pentile displays are simply a stopgap measure while fabrication technology plays catch up.
        In short, your argument about the retina is totally unsound. Yes the retina uses a disproportional number of sensors of each wavelength, but you can NOT logically conclude that you can adjust the output of the SOURCE to match this asymmetry, and not have it noticed. AMOLED displays look fine by themselves. They do not fare so favourably when displayed against superior technologies that do not make these same tradeoffs.

        "For me, the first panel worthy of being named after the retina will have to have 10 times the lineal density of the current panels. And like the human eye, it will have to be clever about the economic use of individual components to attain its objective (pentile being a first step in this latter direction)."

        No. Exactly 180 degrees wrong. The display should NOT mirror the sensors of the receiver, it should mirror the visual elements of the display the sensor evolved to receive. Mirroring the retina does NOT give you a better display. Mirroring the visual reality there retina evolved to sample does, and that implies a full RGB output. Yes, you can cheat with pentiles, and it is indeed a graceful, elegant cheat, but it is still a cheat. Samsung knows this. Apparently you do not.

        And then to top it all off you compound your error by talking about linear pixel density of the retina. If you truly knew anything about the retina, you would know that linear density is largely irrelevant. ALL meaningful discussion about the human retinal and perceptual dynamics use angular density, NOT linear density. It is this angular pixel density that determines how many pixels there needs to be per unit area to create 2 dimensional persistence of vision. This number changes wit distance, unlike linear density. In this regard, the retina display indeed earns its name.
        .DeusExMachina.
      • You're bluetoothing it wrong!

        [quote]
        @DeRSSS
        ....
        Bluetooth 4.0 is also on the new device, as in iPhone 4S.
        [/quote]
        What's the point of having bluetooth 4.0 when the iphone does not support all the standard bluetooth profiles like OBEX for basic file transfer?
        You try and bluetooth a file or picture to an iphone and see how retarded the bluetooth system is on iphone!
        It doesn't JUST WORK.
        warboat
      • Busted!

        @deusexmachina
        You are right. I don't really know what I am talking about - but it is fun pretending. OTOH, when it comes to the brain and perception, who does know what they are talking about?

        Nevertheless, some serious points.

        1. " but that evolved due to a specific trait of the evolutionary environment, namely the prevalence and importance of certain colours in the visual field." If that is the color sensitivity we have evolved, shouldn't it be the goal of a display to match that? You say "take advantage of that"; isn't that the goal? So, rather than "taking advantage" aren't we directly attaining what the display should do? Or are you postulating that the visual field we are trying to show on displays is somehow different/independent of the one we evolved to view?

        2. "AMOLED displays look fine by themselves. They do not fare so favourably when displayed against superior technologies that do not make these same tradeoffs." I have been looking without success for real studies which compare these technologies. In making your definitive "do not fare so well" comment I hope you have a well-controlled, blind study to which to refer me?

        3. "The display should NOT mirror the sensors of the receiver, it should mirror the visual elements of the display the sensor evolved to receive." Conceded. Of course a display's mission is to reproduce the visual field. But there are two ways in which imitating the sensor is important. a) The fact that we use RGB is because the sensor uses RGB. So, we don't have to reproduce the complete electromagnetic spectrum of the visual field, just the three bits we have evolved to see. When intelligent aliens contact us and have evolved to sense 42 parts of the spectrum their early displays may well have used 42 discrete emitters - one for each frequency - in "honest" clusters of 42 for each pixel. But that brings us to b) By the time these aliens find us, their engineers will have found technologies which can emit all the needed wavelengths with only (say) 12 emitters which they have arranged in blocks to efficiently tile the curved surfaces of their displays. This will not be an "honest" display as the term is used for RGB. It will just be a better, cleverer display which imitates the visual field as well as the 42 element displays.

        4. "you compound your error by talking about linear pixel density of the retina". I'm sure you can guess that I know the difference between lineal and angular measurements. I only reduced my comparisons to lineal because that is what is quoted and understood about our displays. My point was to indicate how puny our engineering is compared with the evolved engineering of living organisms. And I have a serious point here too. We will see big progress in display technology with current techniques. But eventually, we will switch to growing our displays (and other technology) under the control of chemicals; we will achieve this by copying how DNA builds the human retina, the kidney and all the other living marvels. Engineering of this type will become designing the DNA analogue which builds the light-emitting elements we want. By then we will be able to abandon RGB and build a single element which emits all the frequencies we want in controlled intensities. And we will be able to pack them even denser than the retina's cones. Of course, this form of DNA-imitating engineering is a long way off. But in the next few years some tiny steps will be taken in the direction of "growing" display elements and I am prepared to wager that these advanced displays will more like pentile and less like "honest" displays in the way they use the individual emitters to build their pixels.

        Keith
        keith.manning@...
    • What is "focus on natural interaction"?

      It means it's good for taking pictures at nudist camps.
      Userama
      • did you mean hamster?

        Like Android users can afford that lifestyle. More like taking pictures of their naked hamster.
        Kiljoy616
    • nothing

      Nothing natural but it sound exciting for android based phone users and they will flock to drop their one year phone for a new one. Its just marketing speak for we have a "SIRI" too.
      Kiljoy616