They don't include the kick back they got under the table. Part of that 13 billion dollar advertising budget of samsungs.
Yeah, but I don't believe that without some proof. JDP would have to risk their reputation, and their business is based on their reputation.
Their reputation is based on them being cheap though. If they were charging people to read their surveys, they'd lose out to another source of reviews.
They are a global marketing firm so they need their click-bait. While price is normally an important consideration, tablet price points are low enough that $100 here and there isn't make or break for buyers and this shows in the sales:
If price was all that important, Apple wouldn't be outselling Samsung by 45%. The growth rates are something to watch but not conclusive as far as price goes while Apple still outsells Samsung.
Huh. Must be weighted with cost being the biggest factor. So with that, would a free turd rank best?
No. Turd with stipend attached would rank best actually. Although this goes against the commonly held belief that, "you couldn't pay me to use that shit!"
According to their published methodology, cost was the lowest weighted item. Looks like, as you say, someone doesn't know how to count.
If all of the criteria other than cost favors the iPad, and the only area that Samsung was better was price? The stars showed iPad winning on all of the other criteria, so go figure.
According to their published methodology, cost was the lowest weighted item. Looks like, as you say, someone doesn't know how to count.
I didn't read the article I just counted the stars given for each criteria. That's what I counted as did the other person that made a comment.
Either way, I wouldn't touch Samsung products. No great apps. Even the music industry favors iPads due to CoreAudio functionality built in which Android doesn't have. Ooops.
The dotsdo not represent a 1-5 rating that can be arithmetically averaged.That's not how it works. Nor was cost the biggest factor. Apple got an excellent score, it just wasn't as high as Samsung's (differing by about 0.2%).
Five dots = Among the best = within 10% of the highest score
Four dots = Better than most = at least 10% above the industry average but below the five-dot scores
Three dots = About average = between 10% above and 20% below the average
Two dots = The rest = 20% below the average
The perceived value of a J.D. Power award has dropped significantly over the years, but it still created a lot of agita here. All it says is that Samsung's tablets have improved since last year and they're more cost competitive. Good for them. It should keep Apple working hard to make even better products. Seems like a good thing to me.
Also, J.D. Power is a marketing research company but their profits (not revenues) substantially come from allowing companies to use their awards or rankings in advertising. So J.D. Power probably doesn't care who wins, although they have a financial interest in making sure the winner will want to advertise that fact. If awards payments are based on the ad spend of a company that would be an inducement for them to declare the biggest spender a winner. I have no idea if that's the case but if I was a competitor I would call it out in order to discredit the award entirely. I'm not aware of that happening.
To all those asking, the math works out just fine. Someone below noted the stars weren't actual score but assuming they were and Samsung scored well in their range vs. Apple as lower, Samsung can easily come out on top.
Oh no poor iSheep have a new enemy! Apple should buy J.D. Power and close them down! Slamscum paid for this result tin hat foil wearers say! Poor deluded iSheep bah bah!
To all those asking, the math works out just fine. Someone below noted the stars weren't actual score but assuming they were and Samsung scored well in their range vs. Apple as lower, Samsung can easily come out on top.
Nicely contrived but, assuming an unbiased statistical distribution of scores relative to bins, hugely improbable.
Completely agree the odds of that happening are very small (and that Apple should have won)but to everyone saying it was impossible that they couldn't score higher without some external bias the math just shows they could.
To all those asking, the math works out just fine. Someone below noted the stars weren't actual score but assuming they were and Samsung scored well in their range vs. Apple as lower, Samsung can easily come out on top.
Score/Weight
0.26
0.22
0.19
0.17
0.16
Where
Range
Samsung
3
3
4
4
4
2
20-39
Apple
5
5
5
5
2
3
40-59
Points
4
60-79
Samsung
59
59
79
79
79
5
80-100
Apple
80
80
80
80
20
Category Total
Final Score
Samsung
15.34
15.34
20.54
20.54
20.54
92.3
Apple
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
5.2
88.4
no doubt JDP has contrived some unseen additional methodology for its "Power Circle Ratings" that can produce such an apparently logically absurd outcome (aka "cooking the books"). but the outcome is still absurd on its face.
had JDP presented its findings as "satisfaction" = "value" (aka "bang for the buck"), that would have made more sense. if Samsung's overall score was 70% of Apple's but its price was only 50% as much, then one could say it had a higher ratio of satisfaction per dollar spent. put another way, if a SS tablet is "good enough" for what you want to do, why spend more on an iPad? you're "satisfied."
what this demonstrates beyond question once again is that all these "rankings" of products we see from such outfits like JDP and Consumer Reports et al are inherently subjective, despite their loudly-claimed objectivity, because the bias of the evaluators is fundamentally baked into the choices they make about the methodologies and data sets they choose to use.
and when they don't even disclose the full details of the calcs (CR never does), they invite speculation about having "stacked the deck" for other ulterior motives. that serves them right - even if untrue - for their lack of transparency.
So the top of the line full size Galaxy Note is the same price as the iPad.
The Galaxy Note 8 is more expensive than the iPadmini.
WTF. You can't count the Galaxy Tab line because those are crap models. You would need to compare those to iPad2. And don't be comparing the 7 inch models since those are 40% smaller than the mini.
If JD Power was honest they should have given two separate awards:
Premium Tablet - Apple
Budget Tablet - Samdung
I thought the Notes were phablets not tablets. What did they do change the name of the Tab to the Note tablet? Even their product name is confusing.
I think the JD Powers surveys were from Tab users since that's what they've using over the past year.
no doubt JDP has contrived some unseen additional methodology for its "Power Circle Ratings" that can produce such an apparently logically absurd outcome (aka "cooking the books"). but the outcome is still absurd on its face.
had JDP presented its findings as "satisfaction" = "value" (aka "bang for the buck"), that would have made more sense. if Samsung's overall score was 70% of Apple's but its price was only 50% as much, then one could say it had a higher ratio of satisfaction per dollar spent. put another way, if a SS tablet is "good enough" for what you want to do, why spend more on an iPad? you're "satisfied."
what this demonstrates beyond question once again is that all these "rankings" of products we see from such outfits like JDP and Consumer Reports et al are inherently subjective, despite their loudly-claimed objectivity, because the bias of the evaluators is fundamentally baked into the choices they make about the methodologies and data sets they choose to use.
and when they don't even disclose the full details of the calcs (CR never does), they invite speculation about having "stacked the deck" for other ulterior motives. that serves them right - even if untrue - for their lack of transparency.
How can something get a 4 star and get the same numerical result if it's weighted differently.
By these numbers, a 4 star rating when it's weighted at .16 should be different to a .17 and a .18 weighting, but this weights them the same, even though they are supposed to be done with different weighting per category. I smell some kind of stupid calculations going on.
To all those asking, the math works out just fine. Someone below noted the stars weren't actual score but assuming they were and Samsung scored well in their range vs. Apple as lower, Samsung can easily come out on top.
Score/Weight
0.26
0.22
0.19
0.17
0.16
Where
Range
Samsung
3
3
4
4
4
2
20-39
Apple
5
5
5
5
2
3
40-59
Points
4
60-79
Samsung
59
59
79
79
79
5
80-100
Apple
80
80
80
80
20
Category Total
Final Score
Samsung
15.34
15.34
20.54
20.54
20.54
92.3
Apple
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
5.2
88.4
How can they arrive 20.54 the same for three categories that have weightings of .19, 17 and .16 respectively and Get final scores of 15.34 with the weightings of .26 and .22 respectively.
I think the weightings were calculated properly when arriving at the final scores.
According to their published methodology, cost was the lowest weighted item. Looks like, as you say, someone doesn't know how to count.
Then if Scamscum got only 4 stars for that category and it was weighted less, then how come the final score of 20.54 was the same as another category that was weighted higher get the same final score of 20.54 and then Apple gets 5 stars for categories weighted much higher and they get a final score of only 20.8?
Sorry, it's how they did these calculations doesn't appear as though the weightings weren't applied.
Comments
Their reputation is based on them being cheap though. If they were charging people to read their surveys, they'd lose out to another source of reviews.
J.D Power:
quality 1/5
accuracy 1/5
unbiased 1/5
anything good 1/5
price 5/5
overall 5/5
They are a global marketing firm so they need their click-bait. While price is normally an important consideration, tablet price points are low enough that $100 here and there isn't make or break for buyers and this shows in the sales:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/10/30/idc-apples-ipad-fell-29-6-tablet-share-q3-2013-samsung-took-second-20-4-asus-third-7-4/
If price was all that important, Apple wouldn't be outselling Samsung by 45%. The growth rates are something to watch but not conclusive as far as price goes while Apple still outsells Samsung.
Because they weighted the cost more than the other, rather than just using equal weighting, or someone doesn't know how to count.
According to their published methodology, cost was the lowest weighted item. Looks like, as you say, someone doesn't know how to count.
I saw exactly zero trick or treaters this time. I'm just amazed.
According to their published methodology, cost was the lowest weighted item. Looks like, as you say, someone doesn't know how to count.
If all of the criteria other than cost favors the iPad, and the only area that Samsung was better was price? The stars showed iPad winning on all of the other criteria, so go figure.
According to their published methodology, cost was the lowest weighted item. Looks like, as you say, someone doesn't know how to count.
I didn't read the article I just counted the stars given for each criteria. That's what I counted as did the other person that made a comment.
Either way, I wouldn't touch Samsung products. No great apps. Even the music industry favors iPads due to CoreAudio functionality built in which Android doesn't have. Ooops.
The dots do not represent a 1-5 rating that can be arithmetically averaged. That's not how it works. Nor was cost the biggest factor. Apple got an excellent score, it just wasn't as high as Samsung's (differing by about 0.2%).
The perceived value of a J.D. Power award has dropped significantly over the years, but it still created a lot of agita here. All it says is that Samsung's tablets have improved since last year and they're more cost competitive. Good for them. It should keep Apple working hard to make even better products. Seems like a good thing to me.
Also, J.D. Power is a marketing research company but their profits (not revenues) substantially come from allowing companies to use their awards or rankings in advertising. So J.D. Power probably doesn't care who wins, although they have a financial interest in making sure the winner will want to advertise that fact. If awards payments are based on the ad spend of a company that would be an inducement for them to declare the biggest spender a winner. I have no idea if that's the case but if I was a competitor I would call it out in order to discredit the award entirely. I'm not aware of that happening.
I think you're right. This is a mistake. Or maybe someone trolling for a laugh. The iPad easily wins this.
To all those asking, the math works out just fine. Someone below noted the stars weren't actual score but assuming they were and Samsung scored well in their range vs. Apple as lower, Samsung can easily come out on top.
Oh no poor iSheep have a new enemy! Apple should buy J.D. Power and close them down! Slamscum paid for this result tin hat foil wearers say! Poor deluded iSheep bah bah!
l'odeur du fromage brebis pomme!
Yep. Yet the opposite seems to be true in cell phones, for some reason.
Nicely contrived but, assuming an unbiased statistical distribution of scores relative to bins, hugely improbable.
Completely agree the odds of that happening are very small (and that Apple should have won) but to everyone saying it was impossible that they couldn't score higher without some external bias the math just shows they could.
To all those asking, the math works out just fine. Someone below noted the stars weren't actual score but assuming they were and Samsung scored well in their range vs. Apple as lower, Samsung can easily come out on top.
no doubt JDP has contrived some unseen additional methodology for its "Power Circle Ratings" that can produce such an apparently logically absurd outcome (aka "cooking the books"). but the outcome is still absurd on its face.
had JDP presented its findings as "satisfaction" = "value" (aka "bang for the buck"), that would have made more sense. if Samsung's overall score was 70% of Apple's but its price was only 50% as much, then one could say it had a higher ratio of satisfaction per dollar spent. put another way, if a SS tablet is "good enough" for what you want to do, why spend more on an iPad? you're "satisfied."
what this demonstrates beyond question once again is that all these "rankings" of products we see from such outfits like JDP and Consumer Reports et al are inherently subjective, despite their loudly-claimed objectivity, because the bias of the evaluators is fundamentally baked into the choices they make about the methodologies and data sets they choose to use.
and when they don't even disclose the full details of the calcs (CR never does), they invite speculation about having "stacked the deck" for other ulterior motives. that serves them right - even if untrue - for their lack of transparency.
Well, if the logic is correct, Apple wins big.... (uses the weighting someone posted that came from The Verge)
Even based on price this makes no sense:
So the top of the line full size Galaxy Note is the same price as the iPad.
The Galaxy Note 8 is more expensive than the iPadmini.
WTF. You can't count the Galaxy Tab line because those are crap models. You would need to compare those to iPad2. And don't be comparing the 7 inch models since those are 40% smaller than the mini.
If JD Power was honest they should have given two separate awards:
Premium Tablet - Apple
Budget Tablet - Samdung
I thought the Notes were phablets not tablets. What did they do change the name of the Tab to the Note tablet? Even their product name is confusing.
I think the JD Powers surveys were from Tab users since that's what they've using over the past year.
no doubt JDP has contrived some unseen additional methodology for its "Power Circle Ratings" that can produce such an apparently logically absurd outcome (aka "cooking the books"). but the outcome is still absurd on its face.
had JDP presented its findings as "satisfaction" = "value" (aka "bang for the buck"), that would have made more sense. if Samsung's overall score was 70% of Apple's but its price was only 50% as much, then one could say it had a higher ratio of satisfaction per dollar spent. put another way, if a SS tablet is "good enough" for what you want to do, why spend more on an iPad? you're "satisfied."
what this demonstrates beyond question once again is that all these "rankings" of products we see from such outfits like JDP and Consumer Reports et al are inherently subjective, despite their loudly-claimed objectivity, because the bias of the evaluators is fundamentally baked into the choices they make about the methodologies and data sets they choose to use.
and when they don't even disclose the full details of the calcs (CR never does), they invite speculation about having "stacked the deck" for other ulterior motives. that serves them right - even if untrue - for their lack of transparency.
How can something get a 4 star and get the same numerical result if it's weighted differently.
By these numbers, a 4 star rating when it's weighted at .16 should be different to a .17 and a .18 weighting, but this weights them the same, even though they are supposed to be done with different weighting per category. I smell some kind of stupid calculations going on.
To all those asking, the math works out just fine. Someone below noted the stars weren't actual score but assuming they were and Samsung scored well in their range vs. Apple as lower, Samsung can easily come out on top.
How can they arrive 20.54 the same for three categories that have weightings of .19, 17 and .16 respectively and Get final scores of 15.34 with the weightings of .26 and .22 respectively.
I think the weightings were calculated properly when arriving at the final scores.
Something fishy is going on.
According to their published methodology, cost was the lowest weighted item. Looks like, as you say, someone doesn't know how to count.
Then if Scamscum got only 4 stars for that category and it was weighted less, then how come the final score of 20.54 was the same as another category that was weighted higher get the same final score of 20.54 and then Apple gets 5 stars for categories weighted much higher and they get a final score of only 20.8?
Sorry, it's how they did these calculations doesn't appear as though the weightings weren't applied.