Samsung Galaxy Player 3.6 Review: Android Games and Apps on the Cheap Discussion

[Adama D. Brown]

Overview

The Samsung Galaxy Player 3.6 sports a smaller size and low end specs, but it still offers some surprising features. Plus it comes in at just $150 (or less).

Read the full content of this Article: Samsung Galaxy Player 3.6 Review: Android Games and Apps on the Cheap

Related Articles:

• Sony PlayStation Vita Vs. Nintendo 3DS: Mobile Game Consoles Go Head-to-Head
• Sony PlayStation Vita Review: Taking Mobile Gaming to a New Level
• Samsung Galaxy Player 5.0 Review: Have Fun Without the Formalities

[Mitlov]

I'd muuuuuuch rather have a $249 Galaxy Tab 7 2 if I wanted Android games and apps on the cheap. A 7" tablet is just so much more versatile and easy to use than a smartphone without the -phone part. I think the iPod-and-its-competitors market is dying for a reason.

[Adama D. Brown]

I'd muuuuuuch rather have a $249 Galaxy Tab 7 2 if I wanted Android games and apps on the cheap. A 7" tablet is just so much more versatile and easy to use than a smartphone without the -phone part. I think the iPod-and-its-competitors market is dying for a reason.

There is a value argument to be made for the Galaxy Tab, but there's also the problem of compactness. You can't slip a 7" tablet into your shirt or pants pocket, can't conveniently carry it everywhere, and can't tuck it into the glove compartment when you don't need it.

Plus, the GT may be inexpensive for a tablet, but at $250 it's still almost twice the price of the Galaxy Player 3.6. If part of your equation is "It won't be a great loss if this thing gets broken by the kid, lost, dropped in a puddle, etcetera" that extra $100 makes a big difference.

[Hook]

I'd muuuuuuch rather have a $249 Galaxy Tab 7 2 if I wanted Android games and apps on the cheap. A 7" tablet is just so much more versatile and easy to use than a smartphone without the -phone part. I think the iPod-and-its-competitors market is dying for a reason.

Unless you want something pocketable. That's why i much prefer my Samsung Galaxy Player 5 to and Galaxy Tab. Big enough to do real work, small enough to be with me wherever I need to get that work done. MP3 player? What's that?

Then again, I'm well aware no company has ever gotten rich off of satisfying my needs. ;-)

EDIT: Adama and I were posting at the same time.

[Varjak]

First, what struck me is that the review seems to describe a modern-day equivalent of a Palm LifeDrive. Same screen specs and all. (By the way, I don't have a problem reading on an LD.)

I wonder if the battery is actually a 1200 and mislabelled, thus the confusion over battery life?

I don't think you could get 100 hours of 'CD quality' music on 6.5 GB (using WAV files, which are the CD equivalent, or even FLAC, which is lossless compressed).

It seems like a cool device. I'm impressed that they managed to offer a card slot and a removable battery too.

[Mitlov]

I don't think you could get 100 hours of 'CD quality' music on 6.5 GB (using WAV files, which are the CD equivalent, or even FLAC, which is lossless compressed).

I've found that so long as you're using the 192 kbps aau or 240 kbps mp3 (what I use to rip in iTunes and Zune, respectively) instead of lower-quality files, the limiting factor in audio quality is the headphones, not the audio files. So in that sense, unless you're using $100+ headphones to listen to your $150 music player, it's effectively as good as CD-quality sound, even if the file when viewed in isolation isn't technically CD-quality sound.

[Adama D. Brown]

I don't think you could get 100 hours of 'CD quality' music on 6.5 GB (using WAV files, which are the CD equivalent, or even FLAC, which is lossless compressed).

I'm basing the rough time on 128 Kbit MP3. And yes, I know that's not technically "CD quality," but it's near enough for most people; the distinction between MP3 and FLAC isn't going to be that important to most people who just want to hear their music on the go.

[jigwashere]

I'm no audiophile, so can't comment, but this article was out this week: Top 10 Pervasive Tech Myths That Are Only Wasting Your Time: Lossless Music Sounds Better than MP3

[Adama D. Brown]

I'm no audiophile, so can't comment, but this article was out this week: Top 10 Pervasive Tech Myths That Are Only Wasting Your Time: Lossless Music Sounds Better than MP3

Precisely. This is sort of like the debate about extremely high screen resolution: the benefit is more perceived than it really is felt. You're likely to get more actual, hearable benefit out of going from 128 Kbps MP3 to 192 Kbps than you are going from 192 to FLAC. It's also akin to the situation with "premium" audio and video cables that offer thicker wire, gold plating, etcetera; they don't actually improve performance for the effort invested.

[jigwashere]

In my case, I'd benefit more by getting some decent headphones.