Pogue, Mossberg, Baig review Samsung’s Galaxy Tab

“Initial reviews of the Galaxy Tab, Samsung’s answer to Apple’s iPad, have been mostly positive, though some reviewers have taken issue with the pricing and stability of the new tablet device,” Josh Ong reports for AppleInsider

“Samsung launched its Galaxy Tab in the U.S. this week, and four major wireless carriers will eventually carry the device,” Ong reports. “The 7-inch tablet sports a 1GHz Cortex A8 ARM processor, a 1,024×600-pixel resolution touchscreen and rear- and forward-facing cameras. The device comes with 16GB of storage, expandable to 32GB. The base model of the Tab sells for $600, customers who sign a two-year contract can get the device for $400.”

Ong reports, “In October, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs disparaged the 7-inch form factor, calling it ‘too small to express the software.’ Jobs joked that the smaller tablets would need to ship with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers in order to hit smaller targets on the screen. ‘We think the 7 inch tablets will be dead on arrival, and manufacturers will realize they’re too small and abandon them next year. They’ll then increase the size, abandoning the customers and developers who bought into the smaller format,’ Jobs predicted.”

Full article, which includes coverage of Pogue’s and Mossberg’s reviews, here.

Edward C. Baig reports for USA Today, “The devices run the latest version of Google’s Android mobile operating system. It’s nice but not as slick or intuitive as iPad software… Android badly trails in the apps arms race, but with north of 80,000 apps, you’ll still find plenty to choose from. Some of the apps I downloaded from the Android Market aren’t optimized for the larger screen yet.”

MacDailyNews Take: Some? Try “most, if not all.”

Baig continues, “Samsung’s answer to iTunes is its Media Hub store, at least for movies and TV. But the content for now is pretty sparse… There’s no music in the store, leaving you to fend for yourself at places such as Amazon.”

MacDailyNews Take: Some “answer to iTunes” that is.

Baig continues, “Galaxy Tab isn’t out of this world. But it’s a capable newcomer that promises to give iPad, which I prefer, some much-needed competition in a market that is only getting started.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: We hear this a lot (too much in fact), but why does Apple require “much-needed competition?” Did they not produce the Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad in the complete absence of it? Does anyone honestly think Apple would stop innovating without this so-called “much-needed competition?” If so, given the complete lack of evidence to the contrary, why?

Why do so-called competitors need so much help from so-called reviewers? The leeway, not to mention outright excuses, given by Pogue, Mossberg, and Baig astounds; Apple wouldn’t get an ounce of it from them.

Apple is driven. Apple competes with themselves. They certainly don’t need a bunch of knockoff artists to prompt them to keep striving for perfection.

This Samsung entry looks like a smaller, uglier iPad for a reason: Apple showed them what to do and now they copy as best they can with their plastic and their fragmented, not-meant-for tablets OS and their awful, broken, or non-existent ecosystems. It’s simply horrid crap. We don’t waste our money on wanna-be knockoffs in the name of unnecessary competition.


  1. Why didn’t the media say that Apple’s Mac give the PC platform much needed competition back in the 90s?

    The PC really did need the competition, and unlike with Android devices today, the Mac was a credible, competitive product (actually it beat the pants off the PC in every respect but market share).

  2. There will always be an anti-Apple market, regardless of how the experiences between the products compare. And that market will always be pandered to by journalists who, rather ironically, want to appear credible to a wide range of tech followers.

    I say, let the fools have their Adobe Flash . . . when it works, that is.

  3. “The leeway, not to mention outright excuses, given by Pogue, Mossberg, and Baig astounds; Apple wouldn’t get an ounce of it.”

    All three of those gentlemen do, in fact, give Apple leeway. In general, they are all good reviewers.

    I’m surprised they didn’t go more after the pricepoint – $600 gets you 1GB and the chance to spend more $ money on expanding it?!?!

    Re: competition. I agree that Apple does not require competition to innovate or improve their products over time. I think it is good for Apple to have competition because it allows consumers a chance to see for themselves that Apple delivers superior products and that Apple is a key driver of innovation. I’ve heard many techie friends that are not exactly Apple friendly concede that their Android is merely an iPhone knockoff and that Apple raised the bar for everyone.

  4. Pogue, Mossberg and others of their follow the money, not the truth. Apple rarely advertises in the Press. And these softly softly reviews are about winning ad money. And they pretend to be the masters of objectivity. POSs

  5. They say “much needed competition” because they are hostile to Apple for one of the following reasons:

    They resent products which make them feel inferior.

    They used to assume Apple was a loser and won’t admit they were so dreadfully wrong.

    They have a unrealistic sense of balanced reporting wherein any worthless junk is viable competition.

    They are incentivized in some way to write against Apple.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.