Skip to main content

More Photos Appear of the Samsung Galaxy Premier Phone

Evidence is mounting for Samsung's yet-to-be-announced, all but confirmed Galaxy Premier smartphone.

The image, as seen above, showcases Samsung's GT-I9260, otherwise known as the Galaxy Premier. The photo of the white handset is said to be from Taiwan's National Communications Commission (NCC). Another image posted by evleaks can be seen below.


Elsewhere, an advert showing off the unannounced smartphone emerged in China. Judging by the ad, Samsung seems to be planning two models of the Premier: the I9260 and the I9268 model, with the latter said to be a variant aimed at the Chinese market.

Rumored specs include: 4.65-inch Super AMOLED HD display, an 8MP rear camera, 2MP front-facing camera, a dual-core system-on-chip clocked at 1.5GHz, and a PowerVR SGX544.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

  • Darkk
    Going to get the Galaxy Note II for it's awesome specs. Going to love the 5.5" screen.
    Reply
  • SneakySnake
    What's the difference between this and the GS3?
    Reply
  • The Greater Good
    I understand why Samsung is targeting a wide market with this phone and that's fine. Why label it as a Galaxy? That moniker is reserved for the top tier of the Samsung line.
    Reply
  • belardo
    In the Japanese AD, it shows the "I9260" is the Galaxy Note II...

    Galaxy notes are too big for a phone... its a mini-tablet with phone abilities. Hell - todays Galaxy S3, HTC One X and MC-Atrix/Razor phones are a bit too big already with roughly 4.5" screens.
    Reply
  • IQ11110002
    Your opinion of too big maybe, Not others!
    Galaxy Note II is where "smart phones" should be any smaller and it's a toy or novelty. You could say smaller than 4.5 inches is just a phone with some tablet features as well.
    It's not as bad as people make it out to be, Easily fits in pocket!
    I think you will see just how wrong you are as sales of larger than 4.5inch screens destroy all others in next year or two. It's probably already starting to happen.
    Each to their own if you like using small phones then do so,But for me I won't have any phone with screen below 4.5inches, It's just stupid zooming in and out all the time just to try and be able to read the text on screen.
    Reply
  • I love my Note II and would never go back to a smaller screen
    Reply
  • warezme
    Why even bother with cagy photo previews. Anyone can predict what any new smart phone will look like. It will be a roughly rectangular thin device with some kind of sculpted or radiused corner and large screen in the middle and an assortments of sensors and camera ports on the top bottom with plugins on the sides. Is there really any novel way to build a new smartphone. The time when the look or design of a new phone was news is long over.
    Reply
  • ikyung
    belardoIn the Japanese AD, it shows the "I9260" is the Galaxy Note II... Galaxy notes are too big for a phone... its a mini-tablet with phone abilities. Hell - todays Galaxy S3, HTC One X and MC-Atrix/Razor phones are a bit too big already with roughly 4.5" screens.That is what the critics said when Note 1 was released. "Too small to be a tablet, too big to be a phone." But after people started using it, they couldnt go back to 4.5inch phones. Everyone I know that used a Note has waited for the Note 2. Once you go Note, you can't go back! :D
    Reply
  • Camikazi
    The Greater GoodI understand why Samsung is targeting a wide market with this phone and that's fine. Why label it as a Galaxy? That moniker is reserved for the top tier of the Samsung line.Yea, cause the Galaxy M is a top tier device. Galaxy used to be top end only but now it is their main product line they are just expanding it and rounding it out.
    Reply
  • eklipz330
    The Greater GoodI understand why Samsung is targeting a wide market with this phone and that's fine. Why label it as a Galaxy? That moniker is reserved for the top tier of the Samsung line.lol what? since when? they use galaxy for theyre cheapo mp3 players too
    Reply