Android’s Dirty Secret: Shipping Numbers Are Strong But Returns Are 30-40%

[FrozenTomato]

saw this on techcrunch i thought it was interesting.

Android’s Dirty Secret: Shipping Numbers Are Strong But Returns Are 30-40%


the return rate on some Android devices is between 30 and 40 percent, in comparison to the iPhone 4′s 1.7% return rate as of Antennagate in 2010.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/26/an...ing-numbers-are-strong-but-returns-are-30-40/

 

[MacBoobsPro]

Nearly everyone I know who went out and bought Androids ("because the iPhone sucks") returned them and got an iphone.

 

[FrozenTomato]

Nearly everyone I know who went out and bought Androids ("because the iPhone sucks") returned them and got an iphone.

if they're going to copy Apple at least be good at it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

sorry but the article is crap. "Some person" could just be some sales guy which means nothing.
Sorry but it is crap and that number is way to high.
I might like to point out coming from someone who hates google this article is rather worthless.

 

[Alaerian]

If it's crap, then there must be something that states the contrary. Let me know when you find it.

 

[rdowns]

sorry but the article is crap. "Some person" could just be some sales guy which means nothing.
Sorry but it is crap and that number is way to high.
I might like to point out coming from someone who hates google this article is rather worthless.

So am I to believe your baseless post as fact?

 

[yg17]

If it's crap, then there must be something that states the contrary. Let me know when you find it.

The article doesn't even state a source for the information. "A person familiar with handset sales" - yet this person has no name, no qualifications, nothing. It's shoddy journalism, no matter what the subject matter of the article is.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

If it's crap, then there must be something that states the contrary. Let me know when you find it.

well since everything links back to tech crunch or Apple fan sites not much there.
Just if things look out of line chances are they are. With things like the Galaxy tab at 15% which is on the high side no way in hell phones are going to be over double that.

Simple fact is that does not pass the straight face test. If anyone does not question those numbers then there critical thinking skills are well poor but then again the OP is an self admitted Apple fanboy so well that would explain a lot.

 

[Alaerian]

Again, if it's crap, there must be something that states the contrary.

You are quick to dismiss something you don't like as fluff, but you provide no evidence to back that up.

I'm not at all saying it's 100% truth, but you can't just say "nuh-uh" without some logical reason why.

 

[FrozenTomato]

The article did say "some" Android phones. not all.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Again, if it's crap, there must be something that states the contrary.

You are quick to dismiss something you don't like as fluff, but you provide no evidence to back that up.

I'm not at all saying it's 100% truth, but you can't just say "nuh-uh" without some logical reason why.

read what yg17 posted. It is crap for many reasons. There does not have to be something that states otherwise. If someplace is going to claim that returns are that high they better have some hard facts to back it up. It only takes a quick glance to see that they lack it and it is just head lines.

This is called headline grabbing to get clicks. I have yet to see any article confirming this that does not link back to the original one. Just repeating the same crappy news.

The article doesn't even state a source for the information. "A person familiar with handset sales" - yet this person has no name, no qualifications, nothing. It's shoddy journalism, no matter what the subject matter of the article is.

 

[Alaerian]

I'm fairly certain that we've seen many, many articles with an undisclosed source.

Again, if you're so deadset that it's not true, provide proof.

 

[yg17]

I'm fairly certain that we've seen many, many articles with an undisclosed source.

Again, if you're so deadset that it's not true, provide proof.

If you're so deadset that it is true, provide proof, because an unnamed source is not proof - it could be a number someone pulled out of their ass.

 

[AAPLaday]

As one of the original comments in the link says, whos to say that "a person familiar with handset sales for multiple manufacturers" isn't someone selling them on ebay?

 

[KnightWRX]

So am I to believe your baseless post as fact?

The same way you believe this baseless article as fact ? Sure you are. Either you don't believe his post and the article or you believe both. Can't start being selective of subjective reporting now.

Again, if it's crap, there must be something that states the contrary.

Hum, there is something that states the contrary. It's right here in this thread. And it has as much evidence as what is provided in the original article, ie, an unnamed and undisclosed source.

Here, again :

An unnamed and undisclosed source says this article is crap.

There we go. Need more ?

A second unnamed and undisclosed source says this article is beyond crap.

Wow, I have 2 sources that state it, while the article only has 1. I win I guess.

 

[Alaerian]

I'm not deadset that it's true. I simply find it amusing that you're so quick to poo-poo it.

"it's not true! It can't be true! But mom!"

 

[JKK photography]

If you've used/owned a variety of Android devices, you'd know that that article is probably correct for some devices.

Good example is the Atrix 4G on ATT. Bought it, returned it the day after. Lag, crash, reboot. That about sums up my experience with that device. So yes, I can see a 30-40% return rate there. And it was marketed well, so i imagine plenty bought it.

Overall, it's obviously written to grab page views. But that doesn't mean that it is completely wrong.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm not deadset that it's true. I simply find it amusing that you're so quick to poo-poo it.

"it's not true! It can't be true! But mom!"

How can you put more value into a blog post than a forum post to begin with ? With the lack of sources and evidence, all we can conclude is that there is nothing to discuss here, both positions are crap.

 

[ChazUK]

I'm fairly certain that we've seen many, many articles with an undisclosed source.

Again, if you're so deadset that it's not true, provide proof.

This is the best proof I can provide:

Android handsets owned (past & present):
HTC Hero
HTC Nexus One
Samsung Galaxy S
Samsung Galaxy Tab
Samsung Nexus S

Return rate: 0% - take that as you may.

There are people out there who believed (and still believe) that Antennagate wasn't real despite all of the evidence out there and the tests done by consumer Reports. If people think a certain way, no amount of proof will change peoples minds.

We all know full well that there is no way any of us can prove the article otherwise. I will say it's surprising that the burden of proof is now on the people who question the lack of facts rather than the person making the claims.

 

[*LTD*]

This is the best proof I can provide:

Android handsets owned (past & present):
HTC Hero
HTC Nexus One
Samsung Galaxy S
Samsung Galaxy Tab
Samsung Nexus S

Return rate: 0% - take that as you may.

There are people out there who believed (and still believe) that Antennagate wasn't real despite all of the evidence out there and the tests done by consumer Reports. If people think a certain way, no amount of proof will change peoples minds.

We all know full well that there is no way any of us can prove the article otherwise. I will say it's surprising that the burden of proof is now on the people who question the lack of facts rather than the person making the claims.

Antennagate wasn't real because the return rate was 1.7%.

The problem may have existed, but the experience of the vast majority of users wasn't affected negatively.

I'm perfectly content to conclude, however, that the author of this article (as posted on TC) is about as reliable as Ed Bott.

 

[roadbloc]

Antennagate wasn't real because the return rate was 1.7%.

I suppose everyone just imagined it then? I suppose I'm imagining the signal drop on my iPhone when I grip it? Get real.

 

[kdarling]

1) That article seems to repeat an old unsubstantiated claim from an Apple-centric analyst last year that was really about tablets.

2) That temporarily low 1.7% iPhone 4 return rate was a very carefully culled number which only reflected returns to ATT stores a few days before the AntennaGate press conference.

Not only were most returns at the time through Apple stores who had spares, but there was so much publicity over the antenna, most consumers were no doubt waiting to see what the deal would be before they turned their phone in.

Current iPhone 4 return rates are more likely around the usual 5% (6-7% for 3GS).

 

[dukebound85]

Again, if it's crap, there must be something that states the contrary.

You are quick to dismiss something you don't like as fluff, but you provide no evidence to back that up.

I'm not at all saying it's 100% truth, but you can't just say "nuh-uh" without some logical reason why.

He is saying that one shouldn't be so quick to believe the article's claims when there is no reputable source at hand

 

[*LTD*]

I suppose everyone just imagined it then?

It had no meaning.

I suppose I'm imagining the signal drop on my iPhone when I grip it? Get real.

So?

 

[FrozenTomato]

if the return rate on Android Tablets is at 15%.....

http://www.androidtablets.net/forum...g-15-analysts-not-amused-android-tablets.html


And they are selling way more Android phones than Android tablets, also considering the fact that Android phones have the same shoddy craftmanship and the same crappy OS, then based on these...

i think 30-40% return rate sounds reasonable.