Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Has Samsung created a real competitor to the iPod touch?

By David Pierce on November 21, 2011 12:58 pm 187Comments

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals.

In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.

Hardware / design

The Galaxy Player 4.0 is the spitting image of the iPhone 3GS

Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and 5.0 review photos

View full Gallery

Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.
Samsung Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 review

Though iOS and Android are engaged in a cutthroat battle for smartphone supremacy, the iPod touch has reigned largely unchallenged in the media player market. Samsung aims to change that with the Galaxy Players, which are basically 4- and 5-inch Galaxy S phones minus the phone parts — they still have full Android Market access, all the excellent Google apps, dual cameras, and solid internals. In addition to the formidable challenge of competing with the iPod touch, the Players — at $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0 — also have to deal with cheap, no-contract Android phones that keep their phone bits and still manage to be priced competitively with the Players. Can Samsung give them enough of an edge to make it worth the money? Read on to find out.

While the Galaxy Player 5.0 is large enough to be unmistakable (at least until the Galaxy Note comes to the US), every single person who’s picked up the Player 4.0 review unit in our office has inevitably responded with some variant of "wow, this looks exactly like the iPhone 3GS." And indeed it does: the contours are similar, the plastic backs are similar, and even the silver bezel seems ripped directly from Apple’s design. The iPhone isn’t the worst design to copy, though, and the Player is good-looking if a little cheap-feeling. Both have black fronts and black or white backs, and otherwise adopt the look and feel of the original Samsung Galaxy S, only without with the Android search button.

There are odd differences between the two models

There’s 8GB of storage inside each Player, with a micro SD slot for up to 32GB more. Both support Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, and have front and rear cameras. There are some differences between the two Player models, though, and they’re both purely aesthetic and kind of puzzling. The Player 4.0’s headphone jack and USB port are both on the top of the device, while the 5.0’s are on the bottom; the 4.0’s power button and volume controls are on opposite sides, while the 5.0 crams them precariously close to each other on the right. The 4.0 also has a removable back with a microSD slot inside the case, while the 5.0 has a non-removable back and a microSD slot up top. Neither is necessarily a better strategy (though I preferred the 4.0’s layout), but it’s strange that Samsung wasn’t consistent with how it built the devices.

Samsung’s high-end phones seem to have landed somewhere between 4.3 and 4.5 inches, which is a pretty optimal size for a cell phone; for some reason Samsung decided to go bigger and smaller, and as a result both Players feel like they're the wrong size. The 4.9-inch tall, 2.5-inch wide Player 4.0 is easily usable in one hand, and is very pocketable, but it feels slightly too small next to Samsung’s phones. The 5.0, on the other hand, is humongous. Its 5.6 x 3.6-inch body feels too big to use in one hand or slip into a pocket, but it’s still too small to use comfortably with two hands. It’s a seriously thick .46 inches, even thicker than Samsung’s much larger tablets, and it weighs 6.4 ounces, which is pretty hefty compared to just 4.2 for the smaller Player. Both models have an 800 x 480 screen, which is relatively sharp on the 4.0, with the TFT LCD showing the same bright and vivid colors Samsung’s Galaxy S phones are known for. 800 x 480 looks comically bad blown up to 5 inches, though; everything is enormous, like it’s zoomed in for the partially blind.

Samsung’s nod to the iPod touch extends all the way to bundling Apple-style white earphones with the Players, though they’re different in one crucial respect: they don’t sound terrible. They’re not great, and don’t have a lot of bass response or dynamic range, but they’re more usable than most bundled earphones, and more comfortable thanks to the three different sets of tips included. There are two speakers on the back of both Player models, and they’re exactly what you’d expect — quiet, tinny, and prone to distortion, but decent enough to show a friend a YouTube video.

Cameras

There are two cameras, but you won't use them

The 3.2-megapixel shooter on the back of the Player takes decent photos, but it’s maddeningly slow, which means you’ll get a lot of blurry pictures unless your subjects are trained as statues. Its photos are definitely better than the iPod touch, though. Video’s more of a mixed bag — I liked the Player’s footage, but it only shoots at 720 x 480, compared to the iPod’s 1280 x 720.

The front camera’s spec on the Galaxy Player is just "Yes," and that about describes it; there’s a camera here, sure, but you’re never going to use it. It shoots soft, blurry 640 x 480 images. It’s functional for video chat, but that’s about all, and since Android’s options — Skype, Fring, and the like — aren’t nearly as elegant as FaceTime, the front camera will likely sit mostly dormant.

Performance

Performance and software

It's last year's Android phone, minus the phone

What you get from the Galaxy Player is Android, plus Samsung’s TouchWiz UI. I’m normally not a fan of TouchWiz, and the fact that the Player runs an older version of the skin (3.0 instead of 4.0) is particularly irksome. Samsung has done a lot to simplify and clean up TouchWiz in recent months, but none of that work made it to either Player, which still have colored boxes behind ugly icons, and clutter everywhere you look. There are a few things TouchWiz does really well, though, and fortunately most of them are related to media playback. There are playback controls in the notification window, as well as on the lock screen; that’s much better than having to unlock your phone and open the app every single time you want to move to the next song.

The primary problem is that the stock Android music player isn’t very good. It works fine, but is overly simple and not very nice to look at, and TouchWiz doesn’t do much to help. Happily, there are plenty of good music players in the Android Market: I’d recommend Google Music, Winamp, Uber Music, and DoubleTwist over the stock Android app, though those apps lose some of the lock-screen and notification window functionalities.

Other than the standard Android apps, there’s not much else preloaded on the Player. There’s a couple of Samsung apps like Samsung Smart View and Samsung Apps, as well as Social Hub and an FM radio app that I quite liked. The restraint is appreciated, especially since the hallmark feature of the Player is that you get full access to the hundreds of thousands of apps in the Android Market, as well as all the Google apps. One of the best Google apps is Navigation, which lets your Galaxy Player double as a GPS with turn-by-turn directions. It’s really, really slow, but it works even when there’s no Wi-Fi to be found.

One app that doesn’t exist for Android, sadly, is iTunes. Google Music is perhaps the closest analog (and is much improved after Google’s recent update), allowing you to buy music and sync it between the cloud and your device, but it’s not nearly as complete or seamless a system as iTunes. You can drag-and-drop songs from your computer, or manage them through other apps, but iTunes handily beats them all in being simple to use. The upside of being outside of the Apple ecosystem, though, is file support: the Player supports a lot more file formats than the iPod, especially when it comes to video playback; all my AVI files of The West Wing episodes were finally playable.

Over several days of using both Player models, I always wished they were just a hair faster. The 1GHz Hummingbird processor and 512MB of RAM aren’t particularly slow or laggy, but now that I’ve gotten used to newer hardware the Player just takes a split-second too long to do almost everything. Launching an app or going to the home screen was especially troublesome, and I occasionally had to mash the capacitive Android buttons a few times to get them to work. I noticed the sluggishness particularly when typing — I’d type four words before they would display, and then they’d all pop up on the screen at once. My benchmark tests backed up what I saw in use, too: I got Quadrant scores between 1,400 and 1,600 for both Players, which is a totally acceptable score but doesn’t even compare to the over-3,000 results from the Galaxy S II. The Player is quite clearly a year-old phone with the phone parts ripped out.

My iPod touch always felt like it lasted forever, only needing a charge every few days with regular use. The Galaxy Players are the same way; they lasted multiple days of relatively frequent use, though lots of Netflix streaming or radio listening did it in much faster. Most of that is just due to the Players’ lack of an always-on cellular connection (same goes for the iPod) and you’d probably get similar battery life from a phone in Airplane mode, but I was definitely impressed with the Player’s longevity.

Wrap-up

Do we really want an Android-based iPod touch?

The Samsung Galaxy Player has two distinct advantages over the iPod touch: its wide file support, and its expandable storage. Those are important features, and they might win some users, but they’re not enough to overtake the iPod. The iPod has access to more and better apps, it’s easier to sync and manage on your computer, and most importantly it’s just a better music player. Plus, when you can walk into a Boost Mobile store and buy the ZTE Warp phone for only $50 more, I’m not sure why you’d want the Galaxy Player. We’ve waited a long time for “the iPod touch for Android,” but if this is it I’m not sure that’s a very exciting concept.

Want to see how the Galaxy Players stack up against the iPod touch and Zune HD? Check it out right here in our product comparison!

Compare It

Samsung Galaxy Player 4

6.0 Verge Score

Good Stuff

Decent bundled headphones
Full Android Market access
Touchwiz adds some good media-related functions

Bad Stuff

Display's resolution is too low
No good iTunes equivalent for Android
Both 4.0 and 5.0 are awkward sizes

The Breakdown

More times than not, the Verge score is based on the average of the subscores below. However, since this is a non-weighted average, we reserve the right to tweak the overall score if we feel it doesn't reflect our overall assessment and price of the product. Read more about how we test and rate products.

Design 7
Display 6
Software 6
Speakers 5
Performance 6
Battery life 8

Comments

DougB541 says:

Sounds about right.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:00 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions

Cats-R-Friend says:

I would really be suprised to see someone buy this over an ipod touch

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:04 PM EST reply Recommend (29) Flag actions

z0phi3l's reply:

My son would love one, he doesn’t care for my iPod, he really does prefer Android, of course I would have to root the thing and get a modified ROM on it to speed things up, if the price is right.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:55 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions

21tiger's reply:

Your son prefers Android for Media playback to the iPod touch…….. And you’re not at all concerned?!?!

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:48 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions

salamanderjuice's reply:

Maybe he has loads of Music in FLAC and all his Videos are not MP4?

File support on iOS is a big weakness in my opinion.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

chaddaddy's reply:

If you’re an audiophile, I don’t think you’d be after Samsung for audio output quality.

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 3:12 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

et's reply:

If these units are based on the Galaxy S with it’s Wolfson DAP, you absolutely would be after them. The Wolfson audio is better than half grand Cowon players…thus far superior than an iTouch.

Posted on Nov 24, 2011 | 3:06 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

lukeskymac's reply:

That’s a big “if”, isn’t it?

Posted on Nov 27, 2011 | 7:39 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

ball-'s reply:

Funny, cause I’ve seen Wolfson used in several Cowon players.

Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 8:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

lukeskymac's reply:

Why is FLAC such a necessity when there’s support for WAV, AIFF and ALAC?

Also, MP4 is far from being the only video format available.

While I agree it is a bit frustrating, I wouldn’t say it’s a “big weakness”

Posted on Nov 27, 2011 | 7:41 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

polter's reply:

I think it’s a mistake to assume the iPod interface is great for everyones music needs. I have always found it lacking.

Posted on Nov 24, 2011 | 1:54 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

westindiesking's reply:

I would get one as well. Actually wanna get one for my nephew so i can video chat and set it up for him for his games and videos.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

mavere's reply:

I imagine that the Galaxy Player’s main market would be those with some philosophical stance against iOS and/or some desire to explore the opportunities provided by Android’s openness.

That said, I don’t know why that market wouldn’t just get an Android phone. This is a (poor) solution in search of a problem.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions

mrfurious's reply:

I do not have any philosophical stance against Apple/iOS or anything, I moved away from using apple products recently after realizing that I was paying about 30% extra for some last year’s specs(on macbook at least) and a shiny logo.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 3:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

Kaarloss78's reply:

/sigh uh huh, sure you did

Posted on Nov 24, 2011 | 11:36 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

lukeskymac's reply:

Well, if you’re stupid enough to buy a MacBook weeks before its refresh, there’s nothing that can be done…

Posted on Nov 27, 2011 | 7:42 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

sighclops's reply:

never mind the unbeatable build quality or rock-solid OS…

my mbp is at 4.5 yrs now going strong!

Posted on Nov 28, 2011 | 10:13 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

justsayyes's reply:

My 6 month old Sandy Bridge Core i7 based MBP 13" with 256MB SSD and 8 GB of RAM crashes almost everyday…just like my MBP 15" Intel Dual Core did before, and my Windows XP based Lenovo before that. Every time I disconnect it from my BookEndz ‘dock’ after putting it to sleep I have to reboot, and then typically the reverse as well; every other time I arrive home or at work after leaving the MBP in sleep state it crashes as well. Thankfully the boot time is a painless 30 seconds. My current methodology to avoid being verbally abused by me Windows 7 toting colleagues is to reboot from sleep immediately upon arriving at a meeting and acting like my computer is waking from sleep. I just talk through the process and no one really notices. My next work computer will not be a Mac. Oh, and did I mention the joy of arriving at a meeting in a foreign country only to realize that you’ve forgotten your Mac power supply. You know the one with the proprietary mag connector that is not licensed to any other manufacturer? The one that none of the other 10 meeting participants has yet they have both universal adaptors and of course several generations/power rated Lenovo power supplies. Defintely tired of those piteous looks as well.

Posted on Dec 10, 2011 | 12:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

korbermeister's reply:

How about the fact that the screen is bigger?

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 8:56 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

uncaughtexception's reply:

I’m philosophically opposed to any Samsung mobile devices because they shamelessly copy iPods and iPhones and ride Apple’s coattails. Next year’s galaxy player or galaxy phone will feature the metal chassis/antenna of the iPhone 4.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 10:27 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

crichton007's reply:

I think it depends on what you want in a player. I think iPod alternatives caught up to the iPod a long time ago but the integration with iTunes makes it difficult to beat. With the Zune going away and no one else trying to bridge this gap I think alternative players have some appeal but not as much as Apple has. And given that Smartphone sales (iPhone, Android, Blackberry and et.) are eating away at iPod market share I don’t think that it’s really one that anyone besides San Disk or other minor MP3 player manufacturers are still chasing.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 8:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

zenninja's reply:

I had the touch. Ended up buying the 5" Galaxy when it went on Woot and really like it. Gave the touch to my daughter. Both were fine, this one just suits my needs better. I am fundamentally platform agnostic. Having the touch however, convinced me against getting the iPhone. Really hated iTunes and glad to be rid of it. The touch couldn’t even do shuffle playback of an entire genre. This annoyed the crap out of me. Had to constantly update playlists rather than just play an entire genre. Touch = Not a great music player. The best overall experience for a music player was the Zune but it was a one trick pony. If The music experience is lacking with the Galaxy but it serves multiple other purposes very well.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 12:31 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

bilalp says:

I can see where Samsung are coming from but I would never buy this. If I was looking for a portable media player the itouch is a no brained not only because of itunes but also the apps and games. I’m a huge android fan and generally despise ios but this just doesn’t make sense to me. Especially since its not exactly ‘cheap’

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:06 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

bilalp's reply:

no brainer lol

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:07 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

yatrik says:

“Hey, why are they comparing this Samsung product with an iPhone? … Hey, why is that iPhone running Android? … WAIT WHAT THE—”

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:08 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions

JRX16's reply:

It’s not even surprising anymore. Samsung, through it’s “partnership” with Apple to make so many of the components, learned as much as it could and is now literally copying ever single Apple product possible. That’s just the market I guess. And it doesn’t really bother me, business is business. What bothers me is when people play deaf, dumb, and blind and act as if this is not the case and Samsung is “inventive and innovative”, like they were born yesterday. It’s amusing. That’s not to say Apple hasn’t copied features or technologies from other companies, it has and the iHaters would point that out below me in 2 seconds, but here Sammy is literally copying entire products so shamelessly, right down the the aesthetics.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 4:06 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

I’m sorry but who has Apple copied? The iHaters don’t have an argument. Everything they say has been refuted countless times. Otherwise Apple would be leaking money to lawsuit settlements.

And it SHOULD bother you. This isn’t business. This is KIRFing. This is the kind of behavior that destroys innovation in a market. No one is willing to invest if a competitor can copy them.

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 12:10 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

mavere's reply:

I’m glad the review points this out immediately. As far as design “inspirations” go, this is just a little bit too blatant.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions

coffeecoffee's reply:

Are they completely oblivious to the fact they have an active lawsuit going on? I’m not in favour of lawsuits, but I don’t see this working in Samsung’s benefit. Why was this product design not vetoed?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 7:53 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions

explosionshurt's reply:

It was designed and was pretty much released before all the lawsuits started. The US got their ones very late.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:35 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

Have you seen the Nook Simple Touch? Or HTC’s phones? All iPhone copycats. It’s insanely pathetic.

Posted on Nov 24, 2011 | 3:08 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

sc0rch3d says:

i remember when having a 1.3mp shooter on the back was the bees knees…and that was only 5 or so years ago!

also…sammy is just asking for trouble with this design

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:08 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

BrianAnderson says:

The only way this will ever legitimately compete with the iPod Touch is if they stop making the iPod Touch.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:09 PM EST reply Recommend (36) Flag actions

RoldGold says:

Darn, I hoped these would get a good review… I believe they’re the only PMP’s that include a GPS chip and a microphone built in (essentially it’s a phone without the phone radio).

Was thinking of a WiFi phone replacement as I carry my MiFi with me at all times now…

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Hobbes420's reply:

The iPod touch includes a mic…

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

RoldGold's reply:

…but no GPS… hence the ‘and’.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 4:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

mmmfrieddough's reply:

The iPod touch has a gps

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

No it doesn’t.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions

TechPreacher's reply:

It has assisted GPS, which is slightly inferior

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

denistanwh's reply:

much more inferior.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions

Topher Allan's reply:

No, it doesn’t. Assisted GPS uses GPS signals from satellites, combined with location information from cell towers to make the calculation quicker.

The iPod Touch does not receive satellite signals, nor does it communicate with cell towers. What it does is query an Apple database with nearby WiFi SSIDs, and receives a location based on those.

GPS is a specific technology that runs over satellites operated by the US Army. You can’t just slap the ‘GPS’ label on any device that is location aware. It’s not a general term.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 4:06 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions

Cloudgazer's reply:

RIght – it doesn’t have GPS, but it does have location information, and in a major city the technology it does have works better than GPS.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

RoldGold's reply:

What all the other people have said, there is no GPS on an iPod touch. I am somewhat of a mapping/GPS nerd… AGPS shouldn’t be allowed to have ‘GPS’ in the acronym in my opinion.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

As a "GPS nerd" you should know that A-GPS is real GPS with the addition of using cell towers and Wifi networks for faster lock on the location. It’s like a super-charged version of GPS. Or like a cheeseburger versus a normal hamburger.

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 2:15 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

buzz.stoner's reply:

“essentially it’s a phone without the phone radio”

So essentially it’s an mp3 player…? Thanks for the insight…

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 10:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

ekolibas's reply:

But there are many MP3 players out there that don’t have all the added functionality as these players though (rear camera, front facing camera, GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, ) and the same exact form factor (it even looks like it has an earpiece on the front) that really do make it basically a phone (Galaxy S) sans the necessary radio. No need to rag on someone making a simple deduction as that wasn’t even the main point of his comment.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 8:05 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

RoldGold's reply:

^ this.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 4:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Optimisticone's reply:

Before u jump ship, check out other reviews from people who are not just Apple lovers! I have a ipod touch and enjoy it. My son has a samsung phone with Android and loves it. I have read positive reviews on this player as well. You will never really know until you play around with one yourself. You will give the best review you will ever need.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 3:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

RoldGold's reply:

Very true. Will be interesting to see if these players, or another Android PMP gets Ice Cream Sandwich anytime soon. I’m not much a fan of Android before Honeycomb (still use my Gingerbread phone though, even though it’s irritating the hell out of me).

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 4:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

modulus says:

Error in Wrap-Up: “Those are important features, and they might win some users, but they’re enough to overtake the iPod.” eh???

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

David Pierce's reply:

Yeah…kind of an important omission. Thanks for that :) Fixed.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

s3ba5t1an's reply:

You could at least mention the wide variety of supporting video codecs (DivX,mkv) since it’s a media player.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 3:23 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

sinaplenty says:

Can’t really see much point in an ipod touch for anyone with a modern smartphone…funny enough I would still want to replace my ipod classic if it died just as something I can fit my whole music collection onto, but I can’t see expandable storage alone being enough to tempt someone to a clunky, chunky, less well made ipod touch.

Oh, and think you’ve lost an important “not” from second sentence of the wrap up.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

Smartphones are either much more expensive than the iPod Touch or are bound to 2-year contracts. The iPod Touch is just 200 bucks and off you go.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

Tommydaniel says:

Doubletwist has a decent desktop app that is comparable to iTunes.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:13 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions

dagamer34 says:

Considering this was based on the original Galaxy S hardware, it seems like this should have been released a year ago….

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:13 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

explosionshurt's reply:

And it pretty much was in every country except for the US.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

g_schrage says:

I was looking at these for my son. I currently have a SII and a Xoom tablet, which he loves. Its either this or the Kindle for him …he’s 3 and isn’t a power user obviously.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

RichyM's reply:

Any reason you wont him an iPod touch?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

atomicsolar says:

Needs taking outside and shooting. The stock music player on the Galaxy S is a choker when it comes to dealing with a lot of files, so if you want a lot of music, you have to go with a 3rd party (PowerAMP is my player of choice). If you are selling a device as a media player, it needs to be ready to go out of the box, not come with the proviso that you download an app that works.
An Android PMP is a fantastic idea, but the execution needs to be more than this – why do manufacturers leave out features that would boost profile (look at Motorola’s Defy models, underpowered for no apparent reason)?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

code601's reply:

My only quam with the music player on the galaxy is the very the dodgy random algorithm .

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

daveloft's reply:

Just install the Google music app, tell latest version is fairly good.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

male says:

Been using the 5 inch version for a month, don’t have a cell phone, so been using it to send and receive phone calls and text wherever there’s free internet access. The phone calls sound ok, some lag but tolerable, and the text msg works fine of course.
I’ve used the camera for portraits and landscapes, and the color appears correct. Sharpness is what you’d expect from 3.2 megapixels.
What I’m disappointed in are the player settings. They don’t seem to “stick”. Turning off the keyboard click function doesn’t keep the clicks away.
Gonna return the player to Amazon soon, despite the free calls and texts on wifi.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

code601 says:

I hope it comes with something other than KIES for music syncing with a pc, because I have never been able to get that to work with my phone, application always crashes.. Have to put all my music directly on micro SD card using explorer.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

explosionshurt's reply:

You can make a folder in the SD card, a folder on your computer, and some sort of syncing solution between them. SyncToy or even briefcases should work.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

digitalbobby says:

Copy ALL the Apple devices!!!! /Samsung

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:32 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions

regiobaden says:

Samsung is really just playing catch up with Apple, why can’t they just innovate something? A Super AMOLED screen would be a first step since the iPod touch has a Retina Display. They should really make something outstanding and let Apple catch up!
Just by the way, these two devices look really awkward side-by-side. Just like you would compare a HP Veer with the Galaxy SII…

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

Samsung has never innovated. All they do in this market is copy Apple.

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 12:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

Matous Vales says:

Shouldn’t the Verge score be 6.3? Becouse 7+6+6+5+6+8 = 38 and 38/6 is 6.3.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

MayorBloomberg's reply:

The editors reserve the right to lower the score if they feel the math doesn’t reflect the true value of the review. Which sounds somewhat arbitrary, but then, so are scoring systems.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

David Pierce's reply:

I dropped it a little because the price is too high — at, say $150 or so they’d be the sum of their parts, but they’re just too expensive.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:50 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

dijimoto's reply:

I’ve noticed that you guys are adjusting the score a lot because of price. Why not add “Price” to the review?
Design = 7
Display = 6
Software = 6
Speakers = 5
Performance = 6
Battery Life = 8
Price = 4

Total Score = 6.0

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 4:35 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

You should lower it because Samsung is blatantly ripping off Apple. That should count for something, unless you want all innovation in the industry to vanish.

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 12:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

Boghog says:

Vastly more easily confused in the public eye than the Tab or SGS2 are. This is just blatant copying.
But , then again, so was the original Galaxy

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

EnemaBagJones says:

So, how much is it?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

g_schrage's reply:

4.0 is $200 and the 5.0 is around $250 most places.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

David Pierce's reply:

It’s $229.99 for the 4.0 and $269.99 for the 5.0. Not sure how that disappeared from the review text, but it’s back in the intro now. Thanks!

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

Isn’t that about the same pricing as the iPod Touch? Doesn’t sound so bad to me.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Cloudgazer's reply:

An inferior product has to offer price if it wants to compete against a market leader like the iPod.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:47 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

dont_touch_my_wowo says:

why try and compete with the touch when the real product im looking for is a ipod classic competitor. just put a wolfson dac, high storage and no touch screen input and i would buy it straight away

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

Considering iPod sales have been declining for years, you would probably be the only one to buy that. Don’t think there’s much money to be made anymore.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Ineptune says:

NOT GONNA HAPPEN
NO NOT GONNA HAPPEN

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:59 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions

TheMilkWars's reply:

Bless your heart

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

kalikot says:

You forgot the most important part of a music player – Sound Quality! I really wonder what improvements/changes they made to the Wolfson DAC found on the original Galaxy S.

Also, would like to know about the GPS if it still has issues like the original Galaxy S hardware it’s based on

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 1:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

TheMacAdvocate says:

Shamelessly ripping off Apple’s form factors and buggering everything else.

Because we’re Samsung. And that’s just the way we’re wired.™

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:02 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions

Richard Gilboy says:

I don’t see a point of buying one of these when you can buy an Xiamoi phone for the same price.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

eseale's reply:

The dual core Xiamoi is shipping for 250$?

Thinking of the Xiamoi for my Nephew in Beijing. He still has the 8GB N95. hahah.

How do you like it?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

brad-t says:

iPod Touch sales are going down year after year because everyone is getting smartphones that play music. Seems late to introduce an entry into this market.

Also, it’s shocking to me that they would release something that looks like this during these harsh legal conditions.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

Are iPod Touch sales really declining? AFAIK the complete iPod line is declining and the iPod Touch is the only constant in there, otherwise iPod sales would decline much faster.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

JPGetter says:

As a owner of the iPod touch and Classic I found myself carrying my Classic more just because of the amount of music it could hold. And I decided to try this as a alternative because I love touch interfaces and the ability to play games and watch movies on the touch but the space constraints for my music catalog where just to much. The fact that this has removable storage and I put my entire collection into Google Music and stream it to this is amazing to me. And that to me kills the iPod. Along with I still use iTunes store my collection and simply drag and drop to my MicroSD card. If you have a small music collection then I could see you saying that the Touch is a marginally better device. But for a large collection its not even close. And I love apple products, but this device it great for my needs and I think it will be for anyone with the same use case as me. And why are you comparing this to the specs of todays android phones when the iPod touch reviews dont come out and say that it uses older than last years specs?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

jakemg says:

I’d recommend Google Music, Winamp, Uber Music, and DoubleTwist over the stock Android app, though those apps lose some of the lock-screen and notification window functionalities.

PowerAMP or GTFO. ;)

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:05 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions

augustofretes's reply:

No consumer focused review should recommend PowerAMP, one of the problems with the stock player is how ugly it is, PowerAMP is even worse. Also, DoubleTwist has an equalizer too, so PowerAMP is just ugly (I actually use Ubermusic).

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 1:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

jakemg's reply:

I’m not sure if you’ve seen the updated interface, but it’s actually really nice. Also, whether something is ugly is an opinion, and not one shared by the many many people who download and use the app.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 3:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

JimmyIsTheOne says:

Another reason it’ll be difficult for this me-too device to compete with the iPod Touch: the entire universe of third party dock connectors and accessories for the Touch, including home stereo docks, alarm clocks with docks, and so on and so forth.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:09 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

Lucky you, I bet it’s only a matter of time until Samsung copies the Dock Connector, too.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

Hobbes420 says:

I checked out the "4 at BestBuy the other day. Really blatant KIRF of the iPhone 3G, I owned one for two years so I should know.

Samsung is really the only company, I think, that does blatantly rip-off Apple. I’m sorry folks, but it seems to be true.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:14 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions

henrycsbc's reply:

Not the only company.. Have a look at HP’s Envy laptops… Macbook Pro replicas

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 6:58 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

You have no idea. Everyone has been ripping off Apple for a long time. Remember these? http://www.loopinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/phonedesigncomparo.png?eb32f0

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 12:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

Also take a look at the Nook simple Touch. Same exact bordering and shape, with the lone button at the bottom. The utter lack of creativity and shameless copying in this industry is astounding. These executives are paid tens of millions to perform a job with the competence of a child.

Posted on Nov 24, 2011 | 3:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Branhower says:

It seems to be that the PMP field is slowly dying. Apple did not update the iPod Touch with the new iPhone specs like they usually do, and the only touchscreen-based competition is just bundling last year’s phone without the phone. Pretty sad.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:17 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions

Luis_de_Camoes's reply:

I agree. I think PMPs like these are less and less sold to people wanting music/movie players. They are increasingly purchased by people who want access to the world of mobile apps/games but don’t want to fork out the money for a monthly data plan. If you just wanted to play music, the iPod Nano is cheaper and has similar music functionality.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

Luis_de_Camoes's reply:

P.S. This is a nicely written review.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

very_serioz's reply:

In the USA you can buy a smartphone with a 2 yr plan but in the third world which is big you have to buy a smartphone for it’s full value and then additionally pay for services. That is why many people use a simple cheap feature phone which is not enough to enjoy media. So feature phone for $100 and PMP for $200 is twice cheaper than buying a smartphone. Plus iPhones and Apple products in the third world cost generally more that in the US. For example, I see iPod nano 8 Gb in my country for $200 while in the US it costs $120.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

willikampmann's reply:

I think this year Apple has tried instead to lower the price of the iPod Touch to make it more affordable to users of PSP and DS. So it’s the low-end entry into the iOS (gaming) world. I believe this year it’s the first time the iPod Touch has gotten below $200. Obviously Apple will have to update it when the PS Vita arrives, though.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

SilverPanda's reply:

If I recall correctly the third generation iPod touch (8 GB) was US$199, just like the second gen. Then, in 2010 Apple released the 4th gen 8 GB at $229 because, for the first time, the hardware was exactly the same for the three touch models (A4 chip, Retina, cameras, etc). Before that, the 8 GB was just the previous generation hardware, much like the entry iPhone is a previous generation iPhone, with 8 GB, at a cheaper price.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 6:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

Why would they bother when they know they’ll just be copied?

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 12:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

bootareen says:

Wow, the different placement of the headphone jack, the button, and the removable back on one, but not the other makes it clear that Samsung is churning out these products just to compete in every category because their factories can. They don’t seem to care about designing a proper considered design or anything or a brand. IMO, the 5" one shouldn’t even exist.

Also, is anyone else surprised at how thick these are compared to the iPod touch?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:39 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

jalexoid's reply:

I bet they are just putting the lower quality components that didn’t make into their phones. In addition Samsung Galaxy SL is not much more expensive.

I tell you, Android is eating into the iPod touch.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

eseale says:

RFS? Voodoo?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

timothyfbrown says:

I have a brother who doesn’t want a smart phone because of data plan costs. He loves Google Music, so this would be a perfect Android wifi device for him. Just depends on price.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 2:43 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

Ricardo Dawkins says:

These Galaxy devices can use Voodoo sound

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

neverSELLingOUT says:

should just make the 5.0" player " the Galaxy NOTE" w/ a pen. then i would buy it.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

mrahh says:

Make the screen smaller and the google music app and I will be happy.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

explosionshurt's reply:

The apk for the Google Music app was released on Engadget a while ago.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

PantieDropper says:

why even bother?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Plazmic Flame says:

ICS has rendered anything without it completely pointless…

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

TheMilkWars says:

I really don’t understand why they didn’t put more effort into these products. The iPod market is so desperate for competition.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

Cloudgazer says:

I wonder if the resemblance to the 3GS is due to them accidentally copying the wrong device?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:46 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions

pingguo's reply:

LOL

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 4:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Flech says:

If they provided a solid music player that blew away other music players, this could have some promise. Motorola/Google should make a move into this space. I think they can nail it with Google Music if they upgrade the UI.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

very_serioz's reply:

Let’s wait for the announced Sony Android PMP.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

devron says:

I have a 5.0 that I bought from Woot!. I think it was last year’s model. (5.0 version. I can’t run many of the apps that are in the Market.) It’s kinda unfortunate. I was really looking forward to this. This would complete my ‘Android jones’ while I use my iPhone. And instead of that beautiful Super AMOLED screen, I get this. They didn’t go far enough and the screen is a big negative.

I think you should have shed more light in the review about the benefits of not being tied to a contract if you want to use Android and see what it’s like. I mean, off contract you’re paying $500 for a device. This is only $200+. I think that’s an awesome deal. And no contract. But that screen….ugh.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

Kenny G Jr. says:

A little to late to the market if you ask me.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 4:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

kchowler says:

I own both the Samsung Player 4 and iPod Touch 4. I found this article useless at best.

Why is the samsung assumed inferior because it’s a copy of the the ipod touch?
Why is it being compared to the android phones? It’s a music player.
The speakers, cameras, screen, processor, storage, gps on the Samsung are all better than the iPod touch 4. Read the specs and try it out. Faster., brighter, clearer, louder, etc.
Why would anyone want to be tied to to iTunes? Pay more for your appas and music, then they’re locked down. (Simular to AOL in the day) The Ipod user has no choice of player, where as the samsung user has many.
iTunes constantly updates every few weeks and forces you to use a usb cable to synce devices.
You can’t make a phone call or text with the ipod touch.
Oh and the scoring is absurd. I would like to see the score for the iPod Touch 4.

There are more accessories for the ipod products which wasn’t mentioned.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

thestroke435's reply:

Finally. somebody who agrees with me. the galaxy players are way better than the ipod touch.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

Except for being a complete copy, right?

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 12:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

augustofretes's reply:

I can’t compare the speakers, but the camera is a mixed bag (better pictures, pathetic video), the screen isn’t better by no measurable standard, the processor isn’t better.. The App Store is the best store out there, period, any other claim is pure fanboyism, the gaming selection on the Touch is way better.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 1:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

augustofretes's reply:

Oh, I’m a SGS II owner, so no, I’m not an Apple fanboy, but these things are not compelling at all.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 1:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

very_serioz's reply:

The App Store is better when it is accessible but outside the US it’s not accessible.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

TrinityR3's reply:

Unless I’m reading this wrong (and there’s definitely a chance that I am)…

Did you just say that the Apple App Store is inaccessible outside of the U.S.?

You mean to tell us that Apple sells iPhones, iPads and iPod touches to over ~~-70~~- countries around the world but the only people who have access the the App Store are U.S. residents?

Think about that one…. For a really…. really… long… long… time…

Posted on Nov 25, 2011 | 5:09 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

kchowler's reply:

How is the 800 MHz apple processor with 256 MB RAM better than the 1
GHz hummingbird processor with 512 MB RAM?

Watching utube videos on my galaxy player 4 is better than on my ipod touch 4, even my kids think so.

Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Optimisticone's reply:

Why buy a Ford over a Chevy? Age Old thing! What ever U have is better than the other guys because you own it. Same with these devices, U use what U like so enjoy it. Don"t wast your time reading and writing reviews, they only raise your blood pressure, just buy one and enjoy it. Free yourself from having to attain affirmation in the type and brand of device you enjoy. So juvenile!!!!

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

patfactorx says:

I feel like the prices should be lower when you could just get a tablet at these prices. If you really want a small and slim music player then you could just get a Creative music player. I really like the styling of their stuff.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

denistanwh's reply:

I have a zen style M300 (cheap, durable, not flashy → but works).

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 11:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Optimisticone's reply:

If U knew that these devices were build in China for under $35 each and you were being charged $235 how would that make you feel?

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

JeanAllTrekkie says:

lol 6.0 – Wow and thats the best they can do lol. Why would anyone get a Android Player when you can get a iPod Touch. All the people u see with Androids carry around a iPod Touch … they do it for a reason.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

thestroke435's reply:

Well thats your opinion.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

SilverPanda's reply:

Obviously.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 10:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

denistanwh's reply:

are u 5? you certainly sound like a 5 year old. (No disrespect to 5 year olds).

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 11:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

IamNabil's reply:

What is an Android?
Seriously, though, other than Jean’s mocking tone and inability to use grammar, I sorta agree with him. I don’t understand why I would buy this. But I want it, just the same.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 11:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

IamNabil's reply:

What is an Android? You mean “android devices,” I think.
Seriously, though, other than Jean’s mocking tone and inability to use grammar, I sorta agree with him. I don’t understand why I would buy this.
But I want it, just the same.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

thisismynextname says:

Samsung are pathetic,. They just had to add that chrome trim around the edge to make it look like an iPod. Jeez just come up with your own designs!

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

Drftsld says:

When you can buy a used Android phone for less than $90 on Craigslist, you would be a fool to buy one of these.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 7:13 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

thestroke435's reply:

There are no data plans.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

NenadaPlakat's reply:

u dont need data to use an android phone as a pmp

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 8:44 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

FrankyApple says:

Pretty good review.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

thestroke435's reply:

No its not.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

No, he should have lambasted Samsung for ripping off Apple. This is unacceptable behavior.

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 12:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

Frenz says:

Currently using my iPhone4 as my music device because i have not bothered to purchase one in quite some time, but the inability to drag & drop single songs, syncing issues, bound to a single library have been quite BIG hassles for me.

In an mp3 player, i want-
- Drag & drop songs on the fly (like a thumb drive).
- Plug into any computer without hassle (Ever been on a trip and cannot add any new songs to iPhone?)
- First and foremost, an mp3 player. Not an app to be navigated too,.

Can i do this with these galaxy players?

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

thestroke435's reply:

you can do all these things on the Galaxy Players.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

thisismynextname's reply:

Apart from the last one.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

thestroke435 says:

I dont like your opinion about the Galaxy Players. MANY people who want an android device, they dont want a tablet or a phone, than these are your best options. most android pmp’s suck but these do not deserve a 6.0.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

David Pierce's reply:

For the record, 6.0’s not a terrible score, and these aren’t terrible devices. They’re just outdated hardware, without the media-focused software that Apple has. A GSII minus the phone would be more compelling, as would these at lower prices.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:01 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

kchowler's reply:

Outdated compare to what? the latest $700 smart phone?

It’s hardward is as good or better than the latest iPod touch (it’s only real competitor)
When you scored the speakers, was that the external speakers or the earbuds that came with it?

Some friends were checking out my Galaxy player and were impressed with the external speakers, they all own an iphone. My iPod touch doesn’t sound nearly as loud or clear. Try it I’m sure you will agree.

The display on the galaxy 4 is as bright and clear as the iPod touch plus it’s significantly larger. How does this earn a 6? I guess the ipod would get a 4?

I have noticed that similar apps load much quicker on the galaxy player, might be the OS or it might be the faster processor. I guess that would be why you scored performance a 6?

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

lukeskymac's reply:

“as good or better”? What have you been smoking!?

Posted on Nov 27, 2011 | 7:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

kchowler's reply:

Galaxy Hardware:
1GHz single-core Hummingbird CPU with 512MB of RAM
4 inch screen
2 cameras, 2 external speakers
User replaceable battery
Expandable memory

iPod touch hardware:
800MHz single-core chip and just 256MB of RAM
3.5 inch screen
1 lowend camera
1 low end external speaker
It will cast you $100 to get apple to change the battery for you.

Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 3:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

uncaughtexception's reply:

And I don’t like your opinion about the Galaxy Players. But not of that matters because they just aren’t going to sell well. People want iPods. Not knockoffs with old designs.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 10:38 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

Goucham says:

I’m one of those who still don’t use a smart phone and was ready to go the Apple route before they announced no updates to the iPod Touch hardware. I blame myself for listening to rumours (I really liked the idea of a built-in GPS.) The Galaxy Player had just been released when I was ready to buy so I took a chance on a 4.0.

I have used [and like] Apple’s portable gear but this was my first real Android experience. Out of the box, everything kind of just worked. All the apps, games and utilities I’ve downloaded from the Market seem to perform at a decent clip but take that with a grain of salt as I have no prior frame of reference. Admittedly there are things that are downright puzzling (why no 720p video when sensor and processor are up to the task) but I really like it.

It isn’t for everyone but if your media isn’t tied up in iTunes you could do far worse.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 11:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

denistanwh says:

The actual item is much better than Pierce would have us believe. Poor review. That said, galaxy play is still not close enough to kill the ipod touch.

Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 11:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Freaksho says:

The iPod touch is still a way better overall better buy. But you did neglect to mention PowerAmp; it’s probably the best music app on the android market with features that totally wipe the floor with Apple’s music app.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 12:43 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

augustofretes says:

I’n my opinion, if you want a good multimedia experience, and also a phone, you should just go to ebay an buy a Samsung Focus, those things are being sold (new) for ~$200, you get yourself a cellphone and a great multimedia experience.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 1:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

very_serioz's reply:

Gosh. The bargain prices are for Americans only. For others NO WAY!

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Qfax says:

Seems about right. The PMP market might be declining overall, but I think the ‘just get a smartphone’ argument doesn’t seem to quite take into account that smartphones require data plans(which tend to require voice plans) that can cost upwards of 2 grand over two years. Compared to a one-time cost of ~$200-250, PMPs still have their place, I think, for the time being. Though it may well be they die out entirely within the next few years.

Also, I think it makes perfect sense for these players to be essentially last year’s hardware repackaged. After all, cutting edge smartphones can cost upwards of $600 unsubsidized with “only” 16gb(sometimes 32) of storage. Using last year’s hardware is a big part of what enables them to be “only” $229(which, again, is a one-time cost).

My biggest disappointment with both these Samsungs, — and the iPod touch for that matter — is that the cameras are as bad as they are. Understanding that these products are designed to be relatively ‘cheap’, it still seems to me that of all the smartphone functions that aren’t related to telephony(as in, the ones that would be appealing to someone who doesn’t want/need a smartphone) the camera would be the most important or desired, yet it also seems to be the most neglected.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 1:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

TrinityR3's reply:

I had my iPhone 3GS stolen earlier this year in Vietnam. At that point (since my finances are pretty slim) I was really considering getting a Nokia dumb phone and a either an iPod Touch or a Samsung PMP.

I ended up getting the iPhone 4 but I really think these devices are great for people on a budget, want to separate their phone from multimedia, or just want another device for media consumption.

Although I’m not a fan of Samsung’s copying, the fact that their are still manufacturers producing fullscreen touch based PMP is a good thing. After all, not everyone can afford shiny new smart phones.

Posted on Nov 25, 2011 | 5:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

explosionshurt says:

I happen to own a Galaxy Player 4.0. Happy to answer any questions about it :)

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

explosionshurt's reply:

Here is a picture taken with the Galaxy Player at ISO 100 at 9PM 5 minutes ago. I’ll try and post some daylight pictures later…

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 6:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

sonicmerlin's reply:

How does it feel supporting company that shamelessly rips off its competitors’ designs?

Posted on Nov 24, 2011 | 3:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

justsayyes's reply:

Don’t know why I’m bothering but Jobs is proud of stealing great ideas, “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” – 1996. So I guess Apple is a “great artist of a company” and therefore entitled to steal? I don’t fault Apple for pursuing their patents rights (I do trademark rights for my company and have sued my share of companies). My problem with the legal games is that the patent office awards such nonsensical patents to begin with. The whole system needs an overhaul. Apple’s doing right by their employees and shareholders by suing, IMHO. But it is distasteful…

Posted on Dec 10, 2011 | 12:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

jayant.telang says:

good review

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:40 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

very_serioz says:

I would prefer to buy a hi-fi music player made by chinese companies for $200. Well with awful UI and quality control but with great sound quality.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

joel.gautraud says:

How is Amazon mp3 store not a good alternative to iTunes? Or are you more referring to video content?

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 10:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Formul says:

iPod touch is an (thinner) iPhone 4 for people who can’t afford one, you can buy android phone for the price of the Player … so why even consider buying this piece of crap?

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 10:38 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

spid says:

I would be interested in a device like this, but never knowing when there will be OS updates plus the price keeps me away. I really wish Microsoft would have licensed the Windows Phone OS for a device like this.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 12:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

misskrisha says:

I like the idea of this, but the execution feels very ‘zune-like’.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 1:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

rkw0211 says:

Funny, I was at BestBuy the other day and came across these and I didn’t even know they were new. I thought they were really nice compared to the Android I had left behind. And I don’t think the 5.0’s screen was comically blown up or pixelated, coming from an iPhone 4 user. As far as speed goes, I actually looked the Galaxy 5.0 up to see if it was based off of the Galaxy S II. But that’s my opinion after just 10 minutes, so take it for what you will, I suppose.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 3:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

jdog25 says:

What was Samsung thinking. When I saw TouchWiz I already knew that they blew it.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 5:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

NeedaJP says:

V.important question: does it have gapless playback?
And do you get music controls on the lock screen if PIN/pattern is enabled?
2 major problems on my Galaxy S II that made me go back to iPhone :(

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 9:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

tylerbrainerd says:

Mini-tablets, hooray?

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 10:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

tylerbrainerd says:

I’m really just not sure why someone would buy this instead of just picking up an older android phone off contract. I could get a used android phone with these same specs for $20 off ebay.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 | 10:40 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions

allyghee says:

sheer waste of money! i guess they are banking their hopes on people who call all PMP’s iPod. last time, some one asked me if iTunes is a phone.! lol

Yea, I am from a third world country so this should not be surprising at all…

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 8:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Gray_Beard says:

I find it interesting how few people see these devices for what they really are: pocketable computers. Want it for the music, or more generally media? Fine. Want it to read ebooks, check email, carry important documents, replace a note book or journal, etc. They will do all that too. All without the burden of monthly charges! You can even make VOIP calls from anywhere in the world.

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 11:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

BahamasGeek242 says:

I like Samsung products a lot but why even bother making a MP3 player now. As far as I am concerned Apple has the best mp3 player period and the Zune is still in the number 2 and YES I HAVE BOTH!

Posted on Nov 23, 2011 | 11:49 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions

calebhansen's reply:

The reason you have both is because you can’t get the fill you need from one of these products that’s why you have both. The Samsung players have the same abilities as the ipod touch and more. In all the reviews I have seen and read the galaxy player has won the only thing that the ipod has going for it is itunes.

Posted on Dec 05, 2011 | 8:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

_aurel_ says:

So, you say there’s no real good competitor to itunes? Somebody tell Amazon Music and Google Music about that. I’ve found nearly every artist on both those music stores, and I get the option of getting a fee online backup without paying extra. I also question that validity of having a ball-in-chain like itunes on a PMP like this, since it restricts your ability to use it as a mass-storage device, or to easily transfer songs outside of itunes to your device. Not that any of these things would matter to someone not doing their research.

Posted on Nov 28, 2011 | 2:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

calebhansen says:

WOW!!! Sounds like a bunch of apple nerds!!!

Posted on Dec 05, 2011 | 8:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

justsayyes says:

My kid will be getting one of these. She understands value shopping and is capable of a rational decision (I hope!). The break down is simple:

Unit cost delta – $0
Headphone delta – $30
Storage delta of an 8GB MicroSD – $15 (as I happen to have an extra laying about)
Camera quality delta – $30 (isn’t it worth $30 to have a better camera? And just replace the shitty built in s/w with Camera 360 or other and you loose both the lag and gain features)
GPS – $60 (for a refurbished cheap Garmin or Tom Tom)

So you get about $135 extra with the Galaxy in terms of hardware and capabiltities in addition to the bigger/brighter screen that’s better for movies, video, and web,louder better dual speakers and simple hackability (when the time comes). And given my kid is a new driver, the GPS helps the parental units sleep a lot better.

Posted on Dec 10, 2011 | 12:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

↑ Top of comments
↑ Top of page
↑ The Verge