Samsung Galaxy Tab Return Rates Hit 16 Percent | AllThingsD
digitaldaily.allthingsd.com
digitaldaily.allthingsd.com
If I'm honest, it shocks me that people still buy Android phones from Samsung. Nearly everything they've released for Android has been of poor quality, yet they sweep their old products under the rug and release something new and shiny for Android fanboys to gawk over. I cannot help but believe that the desire for a platform to come out on top suppresses much of the deserved criticism some Android phones face.
I'll also never touch a Sony Ericsson for the same reason.
All of iPad's competitors right now are jokes. It's as if companies think it's the shape of the device matters more than the experience of using the device. I guess knowing this is the difference between creating a market and just trying to build devices for a market.
In fact right before iPad came out most competitors had products in the pipeline.
The second they saw what the iPad was they all scraped it.
At least you gotta give them credit for that.
The device is too big and too heavy. The OS far from optimal for the device. That the Galaxy Tab is a pretty marginal device, with a slew of weaknesses, in no way validates anything that Apple has done with the iPad.
The iPad is a superior device to the tab. However I, and billions of other people, haven't opted to buy it. The market waits for something that fits our needs better.
It's as if companies think it's the shape of the device matters more than the experience of using the device. I guess knowing this
What does this even mean? It sounds like some sort of iPad-owner defensive reaction to a smaller tablet. Samsung couldn't suddenly make Android tablet-ready, but as above you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
A 7" tablet with a unoptimized OS does not invalidate a 7" tablet. A tablet with an unoptimized OS does not validate every facet of a tablet with a more appropriate OS.
As one aside, and to go slightly conspiratorial, the lack of decent Android competitors to the iPad falls largely on Google's shoulders. It strongly seems like Google was of mixed emotions about tablets, desperately wanting devices bigger than a smartphone to be owned by the ChromeOS project. They ignored the market, undermined the market, and only came around after lots of delays, all while ChromeOS slowly pushed its way into the light.
It might be a bit on the heavy side (and I had to think about that) but I guess it is a trade off with battery size - and I'm pretty pleased with the battery life.
I'm not a particularly enthusiastic smartphone user (I have both a work iPhone and a personal Android phone) - I use the iPad far more than my phones.
"Price" could be a deciding factor in this case. $649 is a ridiculous price. ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00480P67K/ref=asc_df_B00480P67K141... ) Pricing it above iPad is unbelievable. Someone who pays $649 (or $599 through discount stores) expects a greater value than iPad experience, which Froyo does not meet.
7" must be a sweet spot for some people that don't need to read documents and want a screen larger than a mobile phone -- but still need the difference in portability.
But I doubt it is a large niche.
" However I, and billions of other people, haven't opted to buy it. The market waits for something that fits our needs better."
are that this could have been said of any object 9 months after its appearance. This could have been said about movies, TV, radio, cell phones, etc.
I think it's clear that there is a market for iPad like devices.
My statement about shape versus experience is that there are a slew of tablet devices that clearly have been rushed into production. I think companies are doing this because they want to say, "We're in the tablet market too." Samsung made a tablet for the sake of making a tablet. I don't think they put much thought into the device. They were more focused on having a device than on having a device with a good user experience. Apple spent a lot of development time before they released the iPad. This shows in their product.
There is nothing wrong with a 7" tablet. There is something wrong with a 7" tablet using an OS not designed for such a device. Android isn't tablet ready and people should not expect Android tablets to be as good as the iPad.
BTW I don't own an iPad. I never buy first generation hardware.
Of course there is, as the market has clearly shown. I suspect that there will be a market for 5", 7", 10", 12", and so on tablets. Consumer choice is good.
Yet your post seemed to posit that because the iPad has succeeded where the Tab hasn't, every decision Apple made with the iPad (in particular form factor) has been validated. That is specious reasoning.
It should be the case that iPad is the market leader in this category. They created the category and made a very nice device. The other tablets are not nearly as polished as the iPad and this is obvious once you use them.
Concluding from what I've written that I think that "every decision Apple made with the iPad (in particular form factor) has been validated" is a miscarachterization.
However your original statement didn't have a lot of substance beside calling Apple's competitor's a "joke", and I took from it what I could glean.
What the hell does that even mean? When someone asks for a quantity you give them a number or an estimate of a number (big,average,small). When you want to describe squishy things then you can use smooth in the sentence (ie, the UI is smooth, workflow is smooth, this ice cream is smooth).
That sales, as a function, have derivatives of all orders?
While a slicker, more polished interface will do wonders, I do suspect that a lot of the returns right now are still network effect issues: People who get the Tab as a present and then wonder why they can't run all those cool apps that their iPad toting friends have, etc. I would expect that return rates are much higher than iPhone return rates on smartphones as well, for the same reason.
That is changing, of course. The app situation -- and the network inclusion -- is quickly improving.
The Tab only makes sense as a device significantly discounted below the iPad. That it is actually the more expensive option is just perverse.
Since people repeatedly harp on the price, which has always been the same or less than the iPad+3G I'm guessing that the continued lack of a Wi-Fi only model is the real bone of contention (and/or the fact that tablets in general are too expensive for most folk, even/especially those who've already spent thousands on a slightly smaller, data-connected touchscreen slab that they carry as a phone).
I'm guessing the lack of Wi-Fi only was the (unforseen?) consequence of Google's restrictions on device capabilities which meant you needed a 3G radio and phone capabilities to get access to the Market. Google is supposed to have relaxed these and a Wi-Fi only model has been teased, though whether that will be eclipsed by the 2nd gen or not is a matter of timing.
If anyone is competing with iPad, they better price it appropriately. There is no reason for a typical consumer to choose a tablet that costs more than iPad, unless it provides a damn good experience that is beyond the iPad experience.