What kills me it that it looks like it's actually a solidly built machine, and the SoC isn't that bad. The screen just ruins it though; if they wanted 4:3, why not make it 2048x1536 and get the most out of that GPU? The 9.7 model will especially be an eyesore, with every pixel visible from two feet away.
Isn't the A53 about as slow as the A7 for all it's 64 bittedness? The real problem is that ARMs midrange core the A12/17 has been almost entirely MIA leaving nothing between topend parts and low end toys.
The Solo A7 and it's pointlessly 64bitted partner in crime the A53 are the new low end. Low end CPU, low end screen, potentially decent chassis (with a bunch of other bottom end specs I'm holding judgement until reviewers get their hands on) makes this still a relatively low end device. One step above bottom feeder on the spec sheet, but 2 or 3 steps up on price and thus a fail.
If these are really going to be 1024x768, that is just amazing "wow" right there. Wow. A push for even 1600x1200 was too hard? I ran 1024x768 on my 13" CRT in the 80's. No reason to have this resolution in 2015 on a 10" device.
You are mistaking the 90s for the 90s. Besides it is not all that bad, 1024 at 8 inch is substantially higher DPI than most desktop monitors on the market. Think of all the 1080p 23-27 inch monitors...
No, 1024x768 was a pretty common resolution in the 80's on 286's.
Yes, the DPI is THAT bad. It should be significantly higher because a desktop monitor you sit 'feet' away from your eyes and a tablet screen you hold 'inches' away from your eyes.
XGA was introduced in 1990, SVGA (800x600) in 1987, 1024x768 in the 80's on 286 - don't make me laugh. I actually had computers during the 80s, first half 320x200 resolution was considered HIGH END. The mainstream was barely reaching 640x480 in the end.
Besides, no one is forcing you to buy, so quit whining.
I understand it's an old article, however I believe this might be still relevant.
When I run the numbers through an online PPI calculator tool like https://pixelsperinchcalc.com/ the result is quite awful. I don't think we get the value for money for this product by any stretch of imagination!!
Personally I think 1920x1200 or more commonly 1080P is acceptable on just about any screen between 7"-12" (tablet) 13"-24" (monitor) and 32"-55" (television)
I know people will disagree with me, but this resolution works for me in those devices at those sizes based on how far back I sit from them and the age of my eyes.
2560x1440 is killer in 27-32" devices, though, because a 1080P device drops well below 90PPI at these sizes; you can notice edges of a circle at a 2 foot viewing distance (that's always my test...how round a circle is)
Ideally you want the PPI to be: 200PPI+ when working with a device 6" away from eyes 160+ when working with a device 12" away 120+ when working with a device 18" away 90+ when working with a device 24" away. No less than 36PPI @ 10 feet.
The last statement is important because it's the 50PPI cutoff that keeps bringing us to higher TV resolutions. I don't know if anyone has ever seen, say, a 720P (1366x768 max) 42" TV. They were quite common in the mid 2000's. They had around 36PPI, which amusingly made the pixels nearly as large as an infants fingernail. You wouldn't really notice how bad it was if sitting on a couch 10 feet away, but this ushered in the need for 1080P TV's, and now 2160P or QHD, because even 1080P on a 55" TV (this is the most common size set sold according to Consumer Reports) is 45PPI. Again, you won't notice when up close, but if companies like Sharp and Samsung want to sell 65"-90" sets in the mainstream, 1080P just looks embarrassing, especially when people are viewing them in a showroom or aisle in Costco at a close distance.
I've heard in AV circles that for TV displays you want the PPI to be equal to each inch when viewing from 10 feet. This saying has some exceptions which is why i don't like it, but it's a good base point. The main reason I don't like it is because it really only applies to large TV's since anything less than ~46" would have less than 46PPI.
Example matches at 10 feet viewing distance:
32" 720P 49PPI 40" 720P 39PPI (matched inch to PPI ratio) 46" 720P 34PPI 46" 1080P 48PPI (matched inch to PPI ratio) 65" 1080P 34PPI 80" 1080P 28PPI 46" QHD 96PPI 65" QHD 68PPI (matched inch to PPI ratio)
I disagree with you. I think 1080p is not acceptable on a desktop monitor bigger than 20 inches. That's because you sit close to it, so your eyes can see a lot of detail. I can clearly see pixels when reading text on a 24 inch 1080p monitor. On the other hand, 1080p is fine for televisions because you typically sit 6-9ft away from the screen. Likewise on tablets.
I'm still rocking my N7 too, but it was kind of an aberration value-wise. Nothing's gotten close since, NV Shield would probably be the modern equivalent and it's still $300 last I checked...
Then again, the N9 was often for sale at $350 on Amazon, which really puts the larger Samsung to shame even despite QC quirks. I think the N4/5/7 completely skewed value for a few gens tho.
I have the Asus Memopad 176, which I paid $75 after trading in my 2012 Nexus 7. It is ridiculously good for the price, perfect for in my jacket pocket for watching movies on the subway. I am very impressed with the battery life from the Intel chip. I will never buy another iPad as this offers 90% of the quality for 25% of the price.
Minimum for what? I own a Galaxy Tab S 10.5, which probably has the best tablet screen on the market right now, and I honestly can't tell any difference between the same 720p and 1080p video. For text, the resolution may make a difference, but I still can't imagine resolutions above 1080p making a difference on a tablet screen. And on 8inch screens, the higher resolution is even less effective.
Realistically speaking, 720p or 768p is all you need on a tablet. With screen this small, video quality between 720p and 1080p is effectively indistinguishable. You may notice a barely visible improvement in picture clarity when reading text in ebooks and web content when switching to a higher resolution, but it's not a huge deal. On the other hand, the higher resolution screen will tax the GPU/CPU performance more heavily and punish the battery life. In my opinion 1080p is probably a sweet spot for tablets. Anything higher than 1080p is certainly superfluous IMHO.
There are many tablets with substantially better specs (sans the metal body), that are $150 or less. The screen resolution itself is super-budget even for 7" category, much less 10".
You shouldn't chose a pic that makes it look better than it is, device makers only use pics at an angle to mislead about bezel size. With tthat in mid i'll link to the official page for the 8 inch version http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SM-T35... Anyway somehow they manage to keep pushing their prices up , was stupid last year, now it's getting hilarious.
It kinda does if you are paying attention but they picture it in diagonal and at an angle to make it harder for the eye to wight it on both axes and it kinda looks normal enough while a full frontal shows a somewhat odd looking device. The goal being to inform the reader , accurate depictions would be preferable.
I'm sorry for being a naysayer but what's the big deal about an all metal chassis? I personally don't like how hard and cold they feel. I prefer a plastic chassis if the the device is other wise solid. There I said it :^)
I'm actually the same way when it comes to tablets; I love the feel of the Kindle Fire HDX tablets and the Nexus 7. With phones it doesn't matter so much since it goes in a case straight away. That said, metal cases look awesome if you're into that industrial look. And I've had a tablet in the past with a well-designed metal case that didn't try to slip out of my hands as soon as I picked it up (ZTE Optik).
I can't think of anything good to write about this tablet, especially not at the price it is at.
Um ... maybe the 4:3 screen is a nice ratio?
Fricking 1024x768, in 2015? What are they thinking, at over $200? That 10 incher will be like looking at minecraft when you are using it (okay, an exaggeration, but still, 1600x1200 should have been the minumum).
Resolution isn't everything. 1024x768 is a pretty decent resolution for notebooks in the 13" range. Text is readable on it. If the displays have good blacks and accurate colors that can make up for their resolutions, but the price is still steep for an A53 based tablet.
No, 1024x769 isn't acceptable on anything but budget stuff anymore, and it's certainly not any nicer on a laptop... Tho at least a laptop is likely to be viewed from slightly farther.
This is poorly priced budget tablet from my opinion. Low end SOC, with poor resolution display. Its ironic that on the top end side, Samsung is on a resolution race, but on the low end, they are not using even an average resolution display. At this price, they probably will not sell any inside ring competition from the likes of Xiaomi and Huawei.
That's the weird thing with Samsung.. I don't get it. They build some great top end phones, but their tablets all seem to be overpriced low end junk. Wtf Samsung, Wtf?
I don't agree with that. The 10" Galaxy S is the nicest tablet they have produced so far, and it is comparable in price to the Apple equivalent. I have purchased 3 of them and both myself and the people I have bought them for are very happy with them.
Having said that, this "A" tab is pushing it at $99, imho. If I need a cheap, low-end tablet, I will just stop deleting my daily emails from Tiger Direct.
1024x768? Are they kidding? Acer has a quad core Intel 1.3Ghz, Iconia 8 840 w/ 1900x1200, 2GB RAM for $169 @ the Acer store. Don't get me wrong, I also have a Samsung Tab and it is beautiful, but there are better tabs for the money. I'd say border line "low end", "Midrange" is over stating it.
One can pick up a retina iPad mini for $249, which has both 4x the pixel count (2048 x 1536), as well as a faster SOC. That $229 is incredibly optimistic. It's probably faster than the (hopelessly outdated) iPad mini gen 1, but that's available for $149 from some retailers.
This thing really ought to be $99-129 in time for Black Friday.
Logged in just to say only thing I like is the 4:3 aspect ratio which is nice for web & reading but it is not so good if you watch TV & Movies on it. But the screen res is pretty crappy for sure for this kind of money. It should have been at least 1280x800 (16:10) & not priced any higher than $150 to $170 and that is with the 1280x800 res. At 1024x768 it should be priced at $99 to $125 at most. That screen had better have really nice color & contrast for that rip off price. If this was meant to be a budget priced tab then they missed the mark by at least $200..lol
I still think 1024x768 is fine. I still have an iPad2 with that resolution and don't find any issue with it at all. My wife has an iPad Air and while it does have a better screen, it's not like OMG your iPAD2 screen sucks I can't use it!
I find it far more useful than a 16:9 aspect ratio.
Samsung should be ashamed of the fact that they still make screens this crappy. $299? Good luck with that, Samsung...in a few months, the only place you'll find this thing is in the clearance section of Big Lots, next to all the Polaroid crap.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
62 Comments
Back to Article
kaidenshi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
1024x768? Wasn't that the resolution on the first iPad? I think "midrange" is being a bit generous here.Jumangi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
Well its midrage in price, with budget specs. Samsung and their junk tablets.kaidenshi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
What kills me it that it looks like it's actually a solidly built machine, and the SoC isn't that bad. The screen just ruins it though; if they wanted 4:3, why not make it 2048x1536 and get the most out of that GPU? The 9.7 model will especially be an eyesore, with every pixel visible from two feet away.DanNeely - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
Isn't the A53 about as slow as the A7 for all it's 64 bittedness? The real problem is that ARMs midrange core the A12/17 has been almost entirely MIA leaving nothing between topend parts and low end toys.kaidenshi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
That's why I said "isn't that bad". There are much better chips, yes. But a middling chip paired with a 2010 screen makes it a non-starter.DanNeely - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
The Solo A7 and it's pointlessly 64bitted partner in crime the A53 are the new low end. Low end CPU, low end screen, potentially decent chassis (with a bunch of other bottom end specs I'm holding judgement until reviewers get their hands on) makes this still a relatively low end device. One step above bottom feeder on the spec sheet, but 2 or 3 steps up on price and thus a fail.Samus - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
If these are really going to be 1024x768, that is just amazing "wow" right there. Wow. A push for even 1600x1200 was too hard? I ran 1024x768 on my 13" CRT in the 80's. No reason to have this resolution in 2015 on a 10" device.close - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Maybe they had a stockpile of old, useless, 1024x768 panels.ddriver - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
You are mistaking the 90s for the 90s. Besides it is not all that bad, 1024 at 8 inch is substantially higher DPI than most desktop monitors on the market. Think of all the 1080p 23-27 inch monitors...Samus - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
No, 1024x768 was a pretty common resolution in the 80's on 286's.Yes, the DPI is THAT bad. It should be significantly higher because a desktop monitor you sit 'feet' away from your eyes and a tablet screen you hold 'inches' away from your eyes.
Plugging the stats into Sven's DPI calculator: https://www.sven.de/dpi/
It comes out to an embarrassing 132PPI. Welcome back to 2007 mobile devices everybody! At premium prices, too!
ddriver - Wednesday, April 22, 2015 - link
XGA was introduced in 1990, SVGA (800x600) in 1987, 1024x768 in the 80's on 286 - don't make me laugh. I actually had computers during the 80s, first half 320x200 resolution was considered HIGH END. The mainstream was barely reaching 640x480 in the end.Besides, no one is forcing you to buy, so quit whining.
pSupaNova - Sunday, April 26, 2015 - link
Also with a lower resolution this tab should fly at 3D games. Putting to high a resolution on tabs kills graphical performance and drains the battery.Pratts - Sunday, April 26, 2020 - link
I understand it's an old article, however I believe this might be still relevant.When I run the numbers through an online PPI calculator tool like https://pixelsperinchcalc.com/ the result is quite awful. I don't think we get the value for money for this product by any stretch of imagination!!
StevoLincolnite - Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - link
I had a 10" CRT with a 1024x768 resolution 20 years ago.Even 1280x720/1366x768 would have been a good improvement...
TallestJon96 - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
It funny how now 'just HD' is an eyesoreclose - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
It is when you're viewing it from 30cm away. Also, it's funny how a 32Kbps internet connection is painfully slow these days :).Jon Tseng - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
32Kbps? Man I remember when by 9600 baud USR Courier was the king!Anyhow you can game on a MUD perfectly well at 2400 baud. What more do you need?
kaidenshi - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Try D&D played via Morse Code on the 40 meter ham band across the Atlantic ocean. Nothing like rolling for initiative at 12 words per minute!Samus - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Personally I think 1920x1200 or more commonly 1080P is acceptable on just about any screen between 7"-12" (tablet) 13"-24" (monitor) and 32"-55" (television)I know people will disagree with me, but this resolution works for me in those devices at those sizes based on how far back I sit from them and the age of my eyes.
2560x1440 is killer in 27-32" devices, though, because a 1080P device drops well below 90PPI at these sizes; you can notice edges of a circle at a 2 foot viewing distance (that's always my test...how round a circle is)
Ideally you want the PPI to be:
200PPI+ when working with a device 6" away from eyes
160+ when working with a device 12" away
120+ when working with a device 18" away
90+ when working with a device 24" away.
No less than 36PPI @ 10 feet.
The last statement is important because it's the 50PPI cutoff that keeps bringing us to higher TV resolutions. I don't know if anyone has ever seen, say, a 720P (1366x768 max) 42" TV. They were quite common in the mid 2000's. They had around 36PPI, which amusingly made the pixels nearly as large as an infants fingernail. You wouldn't really notice how bad it was if sitting on a couch 10 feet away, but this ushered in the need for 1080P TV's, and now 2160P or QHD, because even 1080P on a 55" TV (this is the most common size set sold according to Consumer Reports) is 45PPI. Again, you won't notice when up close, but if companies like Sharp and Samsung want to sell 65"-90" sets in the mainstream, 1080P just looks embarrassing, especially when people are viewing them in a showroom or aisle in Costco at a close distance.
I've heard in AV circles that for TV displays you want the PPI to be equal to each inch when viewing from 10 feet. This saying has some exceptions which is why i don't like it, but it's a good base point. The main reason I don't like it is because it really only applies to large TV's since anything less than ~46" would have less than 46PPI.
Example matches at 10 feet viewing distance:
32" 720P 49PPI
40" 720P 39PPI (matched inch to PPI ratio)
46" 720P 34PPI
46" 1080P 48PPI (matched inch to PPI ratio)
65" 1080P 34PPI
80" 1080P 28PPI
46" QHD 96PPI
65" QHD 68PPI (matched inch to PPI ratio)
UtilityMax - Friday, April 24, 2015 - link
I disagree with you. I think 1080p is not acceptable on a desktop monitor bigger than 20 inches. That's because you sit close to it, so your eyes can see a lot of detail. I can clearly see pixels when reading text on a 24 inch 1080p monitor. On the other hand, 1080p is fine for televisions because you typically sit 6-9ft away from the screen. Likewise on tablets.R. Hunt - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Because there's a new Tab S2 coming out in a few weeks that will have Amoled and 2048x1536. This Tab A is completely forgettable.Drumsticks - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
Google launched a 1920x1200 7" tablet IN 2013. I think it might even have 2GB of RAM. Holy cow.kaidenshi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
Yes, I have one and I paid the same price for it as the smaller of the Samsung tablets above. It boggles the mind.Impulses - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
I'm still rocking my N7 too, but it was kind of an aberration value-wise. Nothing's gotten close since, NV Shield would probably be the modern equivalent and it's still $300 last I checked...Then again, the N9 was often for sale at $350 on Amazon, which really puts the larger Samsung to shame even despite QC quirks. I think the N4/5/7 completely skewed value for a few gens tho.
Impulses - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
All that being said, ASUS probably has a MemoPad that poses a much better value than this... That res for $300 is just ghastly.Speedfriend - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
I have the Asus Memopad 176, which I paid $75 after trading in my 2012 Nexus 7. It is ridiculously good for the price, perfect for in my jacket pocket for watching movies on the subway. I am very impressed with the battery life from the Intel chip. I will never buy another iPad as this offers 90% of the quality for 25% of the price.FITCamaro - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Why would anyone buy this versus a Nexus 7?Kutark - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Yep, i got to the resolution and immediately wrote it off. No way id ever buy a tablet with that low of a resolution. 1080p is a minimum IMOUtilityMax - Friday, April 24, 2015 - link
Minimum for what? I own a Galaxy Tab S 10.5, which probably has the best tablet screen on the market right now, and I honestly can't tell any difference between the same 720p and 1080p video. For text, the resolution may make a difference, but I still can't imagine resolutions above 1080p making a difference on a tablet screen. And on 8inch screens, the higher resolution is even less effective.UtilityMax - Friday, April 24, 2015 - link
Realistically speaking, 720p or 768p is all you need on a tablet. With screen this small, video quality between 720p and 1080p is effectively indistinguishable. You may notice a barely visible improvement in picture clarity when reading text in ebooks and web content when switching to a higher resolution, but it's not a huge deal. On the other hand, the higher resolution screen will tax the GPU/CPU performance more heavily and punish the battery life. In my opinion 1080p is probably a sweet spot for tablets. Anything higher than 1080p is certainly superfluous IMHO.SavingPrincess - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
1024x768 for $299?LOL.
ppi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
There are many tablets with substantially better specs (sans the metal body), that are $150 or less. The screen resolution itself is super-budget even for 7" category, much less 10".Does Samsung actually plan to sell some?
R. Hunt - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Samsung always screws early adopters. These will have reasonable prices at discount in a few months, same as it's ever been.jjj - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
You shouldn't chose a pic that makes it look better than it is, device makers only use pics at an angle to mislead about bezel size. With tthat in mid i'll link to the official page for the 8 inch version http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SM-T35...Anyway somehow they manage to keep pushing their prices up , was stupid last year, now it's getting hilarious.
mostlyharmless - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
The first pic sure doesn't look like a 4:3 tab...jjj - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
It kinda does if you are paying attention but they picture it in diagonal and at an angle to make it harder for the eye to wight it on both axes and it kinda looks normal enough while a full frontal shows a somewhat odd looking device. The goal being to inform the reader , accurate depictions would be preferable.p1esk - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
1024x768 - it's better be under $100! Is it intended for starving kids in Africa or something?beehofer - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
I'm sorry for being a naysayer but what's the big deal about an all metal chassis? I personally don't like how hard and cold they feel. I prefer a plastic chassis if the the device is other wise solid. There I said it :^)kaidenshi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
I'm actually the same way when it comes to tablets; I love the feel of the Kindle Fire HDX tablets and the Nexus 7. With phones it doesn't matter so much since it goes in a case straight away. That said, metal cases look awesome if you're into that industrial look. And I've had a tablet in the past with a well-designed metal case that didn't try to slip out of my hands as soon as I picked it up (ZTE Optik).psychobriggsy - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
I can't think of anything good to write about this tablet, especially not at the price it is at.Um ... maybe the 4:3 screen is a nice ratio?
Fricking 1024x768, in 2015? What are they thinking, at over $200? That 10 incher will be like looking at minecraft when you are using it (okay, an exaggeration, but still, 1600x1200 should have been the minumum).
UtilityMax - Friday, April 24, 2015 - link
Just ignore the "list" prices. Once the tablet hits the market, the prices will adjust quickly to what people are willing to pay for it.Hubb1e - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
Resolution isn't everything. 1024x768 is a pretty decent resolution for notebooks in the 13" range. Text is readable on it. If the displays have good blacks and accurate colors that can make up for their resolutions, but the price is still steep for an A53 based tablet.fackamato - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
No, 1024x768 is not a decent res for 13". 720 @ 13" is the bare minimum, 1440x900 would make it OK in most people's eyes.Can someone convert that to DPI or PPI?
kaidenshi - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
The 9.7" Samsung tablet above, at 1024x768, is 132ppi. 1024x768@13" is 98ppi.My Nexus 7 2013, at 1920x1200@7" is 323ppi, for the same price as the 8.0 inch Samsung (160ppi), with a faster SoC and more RAM, from two years ago.
You can find PPI/DPI for any screen using http://dpi.lv
Impulses - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
No, 1024x769 isn't acceptable on anything but budget stuff anymore, and it's certainly not any nicer on a laptop... Tho at least a laptop is likely to be viewed from slightly farther.ToTTenTranz - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
These specs at this price bring a whole new meaning to "milking the (brand) cow".I'd say these products are less worth mentioning than all those retailer-branded tablets using Mediatek chipsets and ipad screens, Brandon.
lilmoe - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
smh....Sammy............facepalm...
watzupken - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
This is poorly priced budget tablet from my opinion. Low end SOC, with poor resolution display. Its ironic that on the top end side, Samsung is on a resolution race, but on the low end, they are not using even an average resolution display. At this price, they probably will not sell any inside ring competition from the likes of Xiaomi and Huawei.atoms - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
Unfortunately, Samsung doesn't care what any of you think, or anyone that reads tech news sites.They aren't marketed towards the tech savvy, only stupid women that shop at Wal-Mart. "Poor suckers" is what they are saying.
Mumrik - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
That strikes me as hilariously expensive for bottom level specs. It's like an HP Touchpad with twice the cores.ummduh - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
That's the weird thing with Samsung.. I don't get it. They build some great top end phones, but their tablets all seem to be overpriced low end junk. Wtf Samsung, Wtf?This is like a $129 tablet (8"), tops.
Ricochet0311 - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
I don't agree with that. The 10" Galaxy S is the nicest tablet they have produced so far, and it is comparable in price to the Apple equivalent. I have purchased 3 of them and both myself and the people I have bought them for are very happy with them.Having said that, this "A" tab is pushing it at $99, imho. If I need a cheap, low-end tablet, I will just stop deleting my daily emails from Tiger Direct.
RaistlinZ - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link
1024x768? You'll be playing Connect the Dots between all the visible pixels.Gadgety - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Nothing here, move on, move on.littlebokey - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
1024x768? Are they kidding? Acer has a quad core Intel 1.3Ghz, Iconia 8 840 w/ 1900x1200, 2GB RAM for $169 @ the Acer store. Don't get me wrong, I also have a Samsung Tab and it is beautiful, but there are better tabs for the money. I'd say border line "low end", "Midrange" is over stating it.aliasfox - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
One can pick up a retina iPad mini for $249, which has both 4x the pixel count (2048 x 1536), as well as a faster SOC. That $229 is incredibly optimistic. It's probably faster than the (hopelessly outdated) iPad mini gen 1, but that's available for $149 from some retailers.This thing really ought to be $99-129 in time for Black Friday.
rocky12345 - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Logged in just to say only thing I like is the 4:3 aspect ratio which is nice for web & reading but it is not so good if you watch TV & Movies on it. But the screen res is pretty crappy for sure for this kind of money. It should have been at least 1280x800 (16:10) & not priced any higher than $150 to $170 and that is with the 1280x800 res. At 1024x768 it should be priced at $99 to $125 at most. That screen had better have really nice color & contrast for that rip off price. If this was meant to be a budget priced tab then they missed the mark by at least $200..lolHisDivineOrder - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
1024x768...This is why we need a real successor to the Nexus 7 (2013), Google. Your ODM's don't know how to make a budget device.
Dug - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
I still think 1024x768 is fine. I still have an iPad2 with that resolution and don't find any issue with it at all. My wife has an iPad Air and while it does have a better screen, it's not like OMG your iPAD2 screen sucks I can't use it!I find it far more useful than a 16:9 aspect ratio.
TSkyline5 - Wednesday, April 22, 2015 - link
Samsung should be ashamed of the fact that they still make screens this crappy. $299? Good luck with that, Samsung...in a few months, the only place you'll find this thing is in the clearance section of Big Lots, next to all the Polaroid crap.epobirs - Friday, April 24, 2015 - link
For $300 those specs are terrible. A refurb of a 2 year old model and some time to install a recent Cyanogen rev would deliver better value.medi03 - Sunday, April 26, 2015 - link
Are Whr values correct?4200 mAh => 15.96 Whr , how, 3.8V?