Galaxy S II USA Release Has 4.5-inch Display According to FCC

August 29, 2011
6

It appears that a mister Tommy Thompson from all the way over at Google+ has done some legwork on the images of the Galaxy S II that have been released thus far. What Thompson has done is to take the dimensions as given in the FCC listing of the Epic Touch, aka the WiMAX version of the Galaxy S II being announced tomorrow, and adjusted the images of the original Galaxy S II and the new USA version accordingly. What he's found is that, what do you know, the display on the USA release may well be the larger 4.5-inch display we've been hearing about in a LTE edition of the device.

Now we're not thinking that this release will be LTE-enabled, but a 4.5-inch display certainly isn't out of the picture. On the other hand, the icons appear to be larger on the now-larger of the two devices. Does this mean that the resolution will be the same? Does it mean that the FCC report was a farce? Does it mean that the people responsible for the graphic design in this set of devices made the display the wrong size?

So much to think about! Another thing we can hypothesize over is the processor size, the LTE version of the device having an upgraded 1.5GHz processor right out of the box. But again, this might not be that. We can hope though, that added to our long list of wants for this release on several carriers of course. We'll be in NYC tomorrow to cover the Samsung event, letting you know ASAP everything we hear on the device or devices as they're revealed. Be there!

[device id=1458]


Recent Stories

  • Anonymous

    +1

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFYE56AAXNYEUDVCGIQKPJA75E Douglas Kerr

    Ethically, this website should not place its watermark over a photo that the website took from another site. What rights do you have to place a watermark on another person’s work?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GEHFXH67KK5NVX6X7PBMFVPXPA Infrared

      LOL seriously. Especially when that other website already put its own watermark over the image (not sure if you saw but pocketnow.com already watermarked the bottom right of the image). You absolutely cannot watermark over an already watermarked image, and even if pocketnow.com hadn’t watermarked the image, it isn’t ethical to watermark something that isn’t your own work (I took a digital photography class once and the teacher FLIPPED when a student, instead of taking his own pic, opened up a photo that was on the hard drive of one of the computers and put his watermark on it).

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GEHFXH67KK5NVX6X7PBMFVPXPA Infrared

      LOL seriously. Especially when that other website already put its own watermark over the image (not sure if you saw but pocketnow.com already watermarked the bottom right of the image). You absolutely cannot watermark over an already watermarked image, and even if pocketnow.com hadn’t watermarked the image, it isn’t ethical to watermark something that isn’t your own work (I took a digital photography class once and the teacher FLIPPED when a student, instead of taking his own pic, opened up a photo that was on the hard drive of one of the computers and put his watermark on it).

      • http://androidcommunity.com/ Chris Burns

        the watermark is for the size comparison – PocketNow provided the original image of the device on the right, they didnt make this image with both phones next to one another

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GEHFXH67KK5NVX6X7PBMFVPXPA Infrared

      LOL seriously. Especially when that other website already put its own watermark over the image (not sure if you saw but pocketnow.com already watermarked the bottom right of the image). You absolutely cannot watermark over an already watermarked image, and even if pocketnow.com hadn’t watermarked the image, it isn’t ethical to watermark something that isn’t your own work (I took a digital photography class once and the teacher FLIPPED when a student, instead of taking his own pic, opened up a photo that was on the hard drive of one of the computers and put his watermark on it).