# Asda knocks out 8" Archos Arnova Android tablet - for £99!



## editor (Jul 18, 2011)

Now this is cheap! It's not going top be a speed demon, but it should be good enough for browsing, music/video playback and email.







http://www.wirefresh.com/asda-serves-up-a-99-android-powered-8-archos-arnova-tablet/


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 18, 2011)

Crikey!


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2011)

Any reason to suspect it's any better than the other low-OS-version, under-specced, next-to-useless cheap android tablets that have come out already?


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 18, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Any reason to suspect it's any better than the other low-OS-version, under-specced, next-to-useless cheap android tablets that have come out already?


 
Such as?

Though tbh, I suspect the touchscreen interface is going to be a 9" wide gaping shocker.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Any reason to suspect it's any better than the other low-OS-version, under-specced, next-to-useless cheap android tablets that have come out already?


Not everyone needs the power, the features and the fat price tag of an iPad you know. For £99 this could be a nice little music player/web browser for around the house.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> Not everyone needs the power, the features and the fat price tag of an iPad you know. For £99 this could be a nice little music player/web browser for around the house.


 
Yeah, I use a refurbed Asus netbook most of the time, theres plenty of people like me who just need something cheap for surfing.


----------



## cliche guevara (Jul 18, 2011)

Capacitive or resistive screen?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2011)

Did I say the word iPad? The previous crop of low-price tablets all got absolutely scathing reviews and sold pitiful amounts. What's this one got going for it that the others didn't? Just being able to check off "displays web pages" "outputs sound when MP3 played" does not make for a useful device, unless it does those things reasonably well - ie without lagging, ignoring touches, crashing. I'd like to have my suspicions confirmed or overturned by an actual hands-on review, though.

cliche: it's resistive


----------



## cliche guevara (Jul 18, 2011)

Also, 4GB RAM?! Storage, surely.


----------



## cliche guevara (Jul 18, 2011)

Crispy said:


> cliche: it's resistive


It's toilet then.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> Capacitive or resistive screen?


 
What does this mean please?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> What does this mean please?


 
Two main technologies for touch screens. Resistive detects one touch at a time and is less responsive and accurate. Capacitive detects multiple touches and is more responsive and accurate. It's also more expensive, which is why the cheapest tablets and smartphones don't use it.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Did I say the word iPad? The previous crop of low-price tablets all got absolutely scathing reviews and sold pitiful amounts. What's this one got going for it that the others didn't? Just being able to check off "displays web pages" "outputs sound when MP3 played" does not make for a useful device, unless it does those things reasonably well - ie without lagging, ignoring touches, crashing. I'd like to have my suspicions confirmed or overturned by an actual hands-on review, though


Nah, it's all about snobbery. 

Of course a £99 is going to be shit compared to the swishy, glossy sleek glory of a high end tablet like the iPad, but what those snotty reviewers keep missing is that those kind of machines are _way out of the budget_ of many people.

And unbelievable though it may seem, some people can actually be quite happy with unfashionable, low end machines that do the rock-bottom basics.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What's this one got going for it that the others didn't?


Asda's marketing department?


----------



## cliche guevara (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> What does this mean please?


 


Crispy said:


> Two main technologies for touch screens. Resistive detects one touch at a time and is less responsive and accurate. Capacitive detects multiple touches and is more responsive and accurate. It's also more expensive, which is why the cheapest tablets and smartphones don't use it.


It also means that no matter how fast the processor, or how much RAM the machine has, it will always feel laggy.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 19, 2011)

Snobbery. Ok.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

As an aside, the price point and processor speed put it pretty much where my iPod Touch 2nd gen was when I bought it. Mostly for web browsing, a bit of light gaming, and OCCASIONALLY some music. The memory isn't too dissimilar either 

I'm guessing the bigger screen (and bigger dimensions) might ramp things up a bit; but I'm guessing there's room there for a not-awful product. Not that this isn't awful, but there's room for it not to be awful, looking at vague analogs. 

Isn't there?

Or, hell, maybe there isn't. *shrugs*


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Hands on. 



User comment: 





> I own an archos 7 that I got for $150 .......I carry it around in a small bag and take it places I wouldn't take my real laptop....cheap enough not to worry about leaving it in my car or breaking it, long battery life (back-up especially), and fine for what I am using it for (e-reader, mp-3/video player, an e-mail reader, and a web browser) ... I don't expect laptop performance , but for $150 am very pleased
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/26/archos-arnova-8-and-10-tablets-hit-the-bargain-bin-video/


----------



## cliche guevara (Jul 19, 2011)

1:15, watch the time delay between him pressing the 'a' and it appearing on screen.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> 1:15, watch the time delay between him pressing the 'a' and it appearing on screen.


Gotta say, his demo isn't exactly doing the touch screen any favours. When it isn't the a key, he's proper having to hammer the screen in order to get it to respond. Very much reminds me of my first touchscreen phone, Samsung Pixon. Proper had to hammer that fucker to make it do anything, often several times.

But with - e.g. - a mini keyboard and SD card, that could be well brap.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 19, 2011)

You can tell it's resistive from that video - there's a delay for every interaction and he has to stab at things multiple times to make it work.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> Gotta say, his demo isn't exactly doing the touch screen any favours. When it isn't the a key, he's proper having to hammer the screen in order to get it to respond. Very much reminds me of my first touchscreen phone, Samsung Pixon. Proper had to hammer that fucker to make it do anything, often several times.
> 
> But with - e.g. - a mini keyboard and SD card, that could be well brap.


People are happily using equally unresponsive screens on millions of phones every day. This thing is £99!



mrs quoad said:


> But with - e.g. - a mini keyboard and SD card, that could be well brap.


Indeed. Stick a cheapo 16GB card in there and you've got a basic but decent little MP3/browser combo for the bedroom or whatever.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 19, 2011)

Happily? My brother has a low end touch screen phone. He hates it. "can't type for shit on this thing" he says.
It's 99 quid and you'll get your money's worth. I've paid well over that in the past for similarly ropey gadgets or hardware that ended up gathering dust, because they were under specced for the things they tried to do. It's not about the price, it's about the suitability of the hardware for the task at hand.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> It's not about the price, it's about the suitability of the hardware for the task at hand.


It is ALL about the price. You keep comparing this cheap, cheap, cheap device with your experiences of a shiny, high end gadget. Loads of people can't afford those kind of gadgets but that doesn't mean that they won't find value for money in cheap tablets like this.

Look around you - you'll see millions of people using cheap, low end gadgets and they're perfectly happy to keep on doing so because they're not as demanding as you, and even if they wanted the shiny device wouldn't have as much disposable income as you.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 19, 2011)

At no point in this thread have I compared this device to the iPad. Fuck off with your preconceptions. Jesus. Sleep tight.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> At no point in this thread have I compared this device to the iPad. Fuck off with your preconceptions. Jesus. Sleep tight.


So what _were_ you comparing it to when you came in with all guns sneering:

"Any reason to suspect it's any better than the other low-OS-version, under-specced, next-to-useless *cheap* android tablets that have come out already?"

(my emphasis)


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Happily? My brother has a low end touch screen phone. He hates it. "can't type for shit on this thing" he says.
> It's 99 quid and you'll get your money's worth. I've paid well over that in the past for similarly ropey gadgets or hardware that ended up gathering dust, because they were under specced for the things they tried to do. It's not about the price, it's about the suitability of the hardware for the task at hand.


 
I fucking hated my Pixon, too. The screen was so shite that you needed to batter it repeatedly with the stylus in order to make anything happen, and by the point it did it was so inaccurate that half the letters were wrong anyway. It's, like, wtf is the point of putting a touch screen on if it makes writing text messages take 4 times as long, and 30% as accurate. 

When I first heard about the HTC Desire (around the time I needed a 3g phone due to fieldwork) I wasn't going to go near it without a prolonged trial, because I had profound concerns about trusting non-Apple touch screens after that one, truly fucking awful, experience (and having been given an iPod).

Truly, a shitty interface, that was.

But, yeah. IMO if that WAS wired up to a hardware keyboard / mouse, it could be pretty dinky. And extraordinarily mobile. And no big loss if it goes missing.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> When I first heard about the HTC Desire (around the time I needed a 3g phone due to fieldwork) I wasn't going to go near it without a prolonged trial, because I had profound concerns about trusting non-Apple touch screens after that one, truly fucking awful, experience (and having been given an iPod).
> 
> Truly, a shitty interface, that was.
> 
> But, yeah. IMO if that WAS wired up to a hardware keyboard / mouse, it could be pretty dinky. And extraordinarily mobile. And no big loss if it goes missing.


I found my HTC Desire's screen to be _every bit_ as responsive as my iPhone 3GSs, but that's a different story. 

The thing is, I doubt very much if the target audience for this cheapo tablet is going to be serial emailers, journos or novelists looking to bang out bookss on the unresponsive screen. I expect many will be people who just want to play music, play videos and surf the web - things that don't involve a great deal of typing or screen interaction.

It is, after all, horrendously cheap and put together on the tightest of budgets, but for some folks its limited functionality may just be fine for their needs (or all they can afford).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2011)

My boss came back with a $99 Android tablet the other week - it was interesting to see what the "issues" were that made people slag cheap shit tablets off for.

Basically it just didn't work. Touch response was shit and it couldn't tell where I'd touched half the time - it certainly took a few goes to swipe back and forward. I spent a while thinking maybe it was me but no, it wasn't; it was shit for fingers, a stylus worked better but not brilliantly. The software behind it wasn't that great either, when I got to actually launch it. I couldn't even launch a browser properly let alone type anything in. I wouldn't have paid a tenner for it tbh. It doesn't matter what your intended purposes are if the machine just won't do it.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I wouldn't have paid a tenner for it tbh. It doesn't matter what your intended purposes are if the machine just won't do it.


But then your experience of tablets has been rather at the higher end of the market, no? 

Is it really impossible for you to visualise a situation where someone might just find a cheap tablet useful to their means/budget?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2011)

Nobody finds a tablet that doesn't work useful to their means/budget.

I'd be utterly infuriated myself.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> I found my HTC Desire's screen to be _every bit_ as responsive as my iPhone 3GSs, but that's a different story.


 
Yeah, so did I. That's why I got one, after trialling it. Following the awful, awful experience with the Pixon. Which I guess was resistive. Whilst I'm guessing the HTC and Apple are both capacitative. Like.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Nobody finds a tablet that doesn't work useful to their means/budget.
> 
> I'd be utterly infuriated myself.


 
Set a film going for the kids?

Can it do flash?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> Set a film going for the kids?
> 
> Can it do flash?


 
Who knows tbh?


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Nobody finds a tablet that doesn't work useful to their means/budget.


Are you saying that this tablet _doesn't work?_


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2011)

Oh, I expect that Asda, the big tech giants that they are, have developed their own tablet and not just rebranded one of the other ones that get shit reviews because they don't work.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Are you saying that this tablet _doesn't work?_


 
For certain values of 'work,' that might be an extremely reasonable bit of saying.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> For certain values of 'work,' that might be an extremely reasonable bit of saying.


Do you think that someone buying a rock-bottom, dirt-cheap £99 tablet would be reasonably expecting the thing to work like an expensive tablet? Or do you think they might just put up with the occasional lag and less than super-seductive interface on the grounds that that it's all they can afford/suits their basic needs just fine?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2011)

Work like, you can touch it and it does things? Or you have to touch it five times and it might launch the right app or it might do something else entirely or for that matter just crash?


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Work like, you can touch it and it does things? Or you have to touch it five times and it might launch the right app or it might do something else entirely or for that matter just crash?


I didn't see any of that going on in the video. How about you? Maybe you should view it again.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2011)

I expect a sales video to be entirely representative of product behaviour.

It doesn't work like this. You don't get supermarkets selling rebranded knock-offs of expensive electronic devices (which have their own usability issues even at high levels) for 20% of the price and say "oh right, well, it's going to work just like a Xoom, it's just going to be a bit slower". These aren't PCs. The UI is built into the hardware, it's not standardised screens and keyboards. Tiny differences in performance can make a massive difference.

Nobody will buy this just like they're not buying the other cheap shit Android tablets. I'd sue, if I were Google, damaging the whole image of Android.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

Top-end impulse buy, splattered throughout Asda with an appealing frontage / display case.

They'll sell a shitload.

They might not still be selling them this time next year, but I bet they sell a chuffing tonne.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Here's another two videos of the thing in action. It's a pretty basic-looking thing alright but the screen hardly took five prods to make anything happen.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Do you think that someone buying a rock-bottom, dirt-cheap £99 tablet would be reasonably expecting the thing to work like an expensive tablet? Or do you think they might just put up with the occasional lag and less than super-seductive interface on the grounds that that it's all they can afford/suits their basic needs just fine?


 
I think that's quite a long way of saying 'for certain values of 'work''. 

It's not often that I'm the concise one


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> I think that's quite a long way of saying 'for certain values of 'work''.


I don't know what that phrase means, to be honest.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> I don't know what that phrase means, to be honest.


 
Depends what's meant by 'work.' And who's defining it. And what's important to them.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> Depends what's meant by 'work.' And who's defining it. And what's important to them.


Who goes around "defining work" when it comes to a bargain basement supermarket £99 tablet?!

I've actually no idea what you're on about, but can we agree that this tablet will be rubbish compared to the nice shiny expensive ones, but for the low, low price asked, some people may find it suitable for their budget/needs?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 19, 2011)

Some nice features like the USB port but...

Awful screen

Android 2.1 - really ?

Weak processor

Even for £99 I wouldn't buy one.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Some nice features like the USB port but...
> 
> Awful screen
> 
> ...


Of course you wouldn't. Neither would I. But we're not really the target audience, are we?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Of course you wouldn't. Neither would I. But we're not really the target audience, are we?


 
I'd love a budget tablet under £150 but it'd have to include a capacitive screen, a processor that wouldn't grind to a halt if you tried to do anything even remotely demanding, and a newer version of Android.

It's just a bit too under-spec to really do anything useful with.

I'd say sadly tablets like this will only do damage to the Android brand and hinder it being taken seriously as a tablet OS.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 19, 2011)

from the videos it seems decent enough for the price, I probably wouldn't buy it but plenty of others might.

What is interesting is that given 6 months there will be a far wider range of tablets out there with improved specs and considerably cheaper than the iPad, just like the Desire and Galaxy did to the iPhones.

i'd probably buy a higher spec one for about £180.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 19, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> I'd love a budget tablet under £150 but it'd have to include a capacitive screen, a processor that wouldn't grind to a halt if you tried to do anything even remotely demanding, and a newer version of Android.
> 
> It's just a bit too under-spec to really do anything useful with.
> 
> I'd say sadly tablets like this will only do damage to the Android brand and hinder it being taken seriously as a tablet OS.


 
I don't think it will, the people buying this are hardly going to switch to a 450 quid iPad anyway.

Like I said a few more months and there will be Android tablets that meet your needs for around the £150 mark.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Who goes around "defining work" when it comes to a bargain basement supermarket £99 tablet?!
> 
> I've actually no idea what you're on about, but can we agree that this tablet will be rubbish compared to the nice shiny expensive ones, but for the low, low price asked, some people may find it suitable for their budget/needs?


 
I think you've got a solid point (and one that I've substantially agreed with), but I'm also not convinced that you're not being a wee bit ideological. 

When I had a shit, shit touch screen phone, it was a fucking nightmare. 

Now, that's nothing to do with comparing it with an Apple product, or an HTC product, or anything else; compared to previous phones I'd had, with a plain and simple 0-9 keypad, it was fucking shite. Pure fucking shite. Bordering on unusable, and pretty much every function took way, way longer than anything would take with a hard keypad. The frustration of using it was immense. Not because 'Apple is better' or because of anything else; but because it was utterly, utterly shite - so bad (and so unresponsive) that using the thing was a complete headache. Text messaging took 3 times as long as I was used to (on a standard numberpad with predictive) and the number of mishits / slight spelling mistakes turned doing anything into a slow, chaotic, and profoundly irritating process.

Even at, say, £30, that phone would've been a complete waste of time set next to a £10 Nokia with a keypad that was 5 years older.

The comparison - in that specific example - with a more expensive / shiny touchpad would be mistaken. IMO. Because the phone itself was so utterly shite at what it was meant to do - being a phone - that cutting out the cheap / crap technology and surrendering to a hard keypad would've made the device infinitely better. Even though the appearance of a touch screen might sell.

tbf, this might not be so bad.

And tbh I don't know why I'm arguing, given I substantially agree with your point. But you seem to be such a grumpy old tart about this that I'm now finding myself arguing the 6% against you, despite being 94% in agreement.


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2011)

Im pretty cynical about the cheapo tablets but the video demos of this one don't look too bad to me.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jul 19, 2011)

Having used shit, cheap gadgets before I would fall on the 'not editor' side of this debate. £99 might not be much for a tablet, but for a fundamentally flawed tablet it's a lot.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jul 19, 2011)

It doesn't matter how cheap it is; a crap product is a crap product.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

ChrisFilter said:


> Having used shit, cheap gadgets before I would fall on the 'not editor' side of this debate. £99 might not be much for a tablet, but for a fundamentally flawed tablet it's a lot.


Could you detail its 'fundamental flaws', bearing in mind its price tag/target audience?



Bungle73 said:


> It doesn't matter how cheap it is; a crap product is a crap product.


Had a go on it yet, then?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

Bungle73 said:


> It doesn't matter how cheap it is; a crap product is a crap product.


 
If it plays music, surfs the net, and sends and receives email; why wouldn't someone who wants something to play music, surf the net and send email, but has a limited budget, buy one?


----------



## Bungle73 (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> If it plays music, surfs the net, and sends and receives email; why wouldn't someone who wants something to play music, surf the net and send email, but has a limited budget, buy one?


I think it's already been explained why.  You and Ed seem blinded by the fact that this device is so cheap.  There's a reason it is.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Could you detail its 'fundamental flaws', bearing in mind its price tag/target audience?


 
_Assuming_ it's anything like the cheap gadgets I've used in the past it will be so irritating to use that users - especially casual users, the type this is aimed at - simply won't bother after being frustrated by it a few times. I've done it with phones and eBook readers in the past. There is a line below which value for money dies off. The Advent Vega - fine. This? _Likely_ to be shit.


----------



## joevsimp (Jul 19, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Yeah, I use a refurbed Asus netbook most of the time, theres plenty of people like me who just need something cheap for surfing.


 
I think I'd rather that than this touchpad, I nearly bought one on ebay for fifty quid last year, but it needed to be collected from Stoke on Trent


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Bungle73 said:


> I think it's already been explained why.  You and Ed seem blinded by the fact that this device is so cheap.  There's a reason it is.


It's cheap because it's basic, but all the videos I've seen so far suggest that it is up to basic tasks, albeit with a less than delightful slickness, high levels of clunkiness and with - no doubt - the occasional lag. 

Seeing as you're insisting that I'm "blinded to the facts" perhaps you might enlighten me as to what you're basing your more enlightened opinion on.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Here's a review from the Asda site:


> 4/5 stars
> Age:45 - 55
> Type of shopper:I buy online or in store
> About family:I`m living with partner/spouse - with kids
> ...


----------



## Bungle73 (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> It's cheap because it's basic, but all the videos I've seen so far suggest that it is up to basic tasks, albeit with a less than delightful slickness, high levels of clunkiness and with - no doubt - the occasional lag.
> 
> Seeing as you're insisting that I'm "blinded to the facts" perhaps you might enlighten me as to what you're basing your more enlightened opinion on.



Just a few comments in this thread....



cliche guevara said:


> 1:15, watch the time delay between him pressing the 'a' and it appearing on screen.


 


mrs quoad said:


> Gotta say, his demo isn't exactly doing the touch screen any favours. When it isn't the a key, he's proper having to hammer the screen in order to get it to respond. Very much reminds me of my first touchscreen phone, Samsung Pixon. Proper had to hammer that fucker to make it do anything, often several times.
> 
> But with - e.g. - a mini keyboard and SD card, that could be well brap.


 


Crispy said:


> You can tell it's resistive from that video - there's a delay for every interaction and he has to stab at things multiple times to make it work.


 
To you it's "all about price".  Price isn't the be all and end all of a product.  You might as well spend your money on nothing rather than on a product that's just going to cause frustration.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 19, 2011)

It's not snobbery, some people are perfectly happy driving Nissan Micras instead of BMW X6s, despite the lack of hill decent control and tyre pressure monitoring system.

I'm sure they don't mind not being able to go from 0 to 60mph in under 7 seconds.


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2011)

Bungle73 said:


> Price isn't the be all and end all of a product.  You might as well spend your money on nothing rather than on a product that's just going to cause frustration.


 
That has tended to be my stance in the past. However there are certain points along the spectrum of either price or features/quality, where a happy balance can be reached with far less than optimal experience, especially if expectations are low because the price is super low.

It turns out that to my mind when we are talking about prices this low, it seems like a different class of device to me. If I compare it to iPad etc then its poop, but if I compare it to a glorified digital photo frame, then it starts to have some merit. 

At this sort of price it only needs to be good at a couple of things in order to make sense for some people. If you want to interact with the device heavily for longer periods then ideally you put a higher value on your time & it is worth paying more to avoid frustration, and this device should be avoided. But this equation is going to vary per person, and especially if a person has no particular app needs then I don't see why cheap Androids should be completely condemned. Im more worried about expensive Androids on this front - need more tablet-specific quality apps for that level of device to justify the price, or else its unimpressive compared to iPads.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Bungle73 said:


> To you it's "all about price".  Price isn't the be all and end all of a product.  You might as well spend your money on nothing rather than on a product that's just going to cause frustration.


Have you tried the machine in question yet? It may well be perfectly adequate as a photoframe/browser/MP3 player.  And remember, for some people this is the only kind of tablet they're likely to be able to afford. 

I haven't seen any evidence at all that it's some sort of totally useless unworkable brick. How about you? Did you read the customer review?


----------



## paolo (Jul 19, 2011)

What's the most successful resistive screen phone/tablet to date?


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> What's the most successful resistive screen phone/tablet to date?


Here's ten resistive touch screen phones that shifted _millions_ of units between them: http://touchscreenstoday.com/phones/top-10-resistive-touch-screen-phones



> *Samsung Jet S8000 review 9/10*
> But the screen is big enough at 3.1in and its AMOLED technology ensures it is sharp and bright. Moreover, the 480 x 800 pixels on offer are packed tightly ensuring crispness is brought to proceedings.
> 
> Touch support is good too, with the screen responsive enough to my taps and sweeps to keep me happy despite being resistive rather than capacitive.
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm not arguing that resistive screens are better for a tablet, mind, but capacitive screens aren't always automatically worth the fairly large  extra investment for some users.



> *Resistive Touch Screen*
> 
> Pros:
> The screens are usually inexpensive
> ...


Here's an interesting  comparison between a Samsung tablet and a super cheapo £83  Zenithink ZT-180.



Clearly, capacitive is the one I'd go for, but I don't think resistive screens provide anywhere near as horrific an experience as some are painting here, taking into account the price.


----------



## Corax (Jul 20, 2011)

just don't understand when normally rational people started describing £100 luxury items as 'cheap'.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

Corax said:


> just don't understand when normally rational people started describing £100 luxury items as 'cheap'.


It's_ comparatively_ cheap, just like a new £900 car would be described as cheap. There's nothing irrational about describing it thus.


----------



## Corax (Jul 20, 2011)

It's more the tone.  There was a review linked earlier where the bloke implied he wouldn't be much fussed if he lost or broke it for example.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

Corax said:


> It's more the tone.  There was a review linked earlier where the bloke implied he wouldn't be much fussed if he lost or broke it for example.


Sadly, that's how it is for a lot of people. Throwaway society, innit? Most people get rid of their phones every 12-18 months and the days of TVs lasting 20 years are long gone for many.


----------



## Corax (Jul 20, 2011)

I just can't compute _how_.  I've got a reasonable job, but there's no way I could afford that attitude.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

Corax said:


> I just can't compute _how_.  I've got a reasonable job, but there's no way I could afford that attitude.


Well, you might be the kind of person* that thinks nothing of spending £150 on a meal for two. Or has a flash car. Or the best carpets in your town.
Different strokes for different folks and all that....

(*I'm not saying you _are_, mind!)


----------



## Corax (Jul 20, 2011)

Nope.  It all goes on crack and hookers.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 20, 2011)

After owning one of their 'top end' tabs (Archos 10 IIRC), I wouldn't touch anything they did with a barge pole. Everything about it was a frustrating exercise in a lottery of anything working.


----------

