I don't believe a Samsung cost factor of 5.4 is possible. That's greater than perfect. So the best it can be is 5.0. There's something else bothering me about your scenario. Let me think on it.
If samsung is 3.4 3.4 4.4 4.4 5.4 = 21 points / 5 = 4.2
and apple is 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 = 19.5 points / 5 = 3.9
using rounding for the stars this scenario (most extreme one) is possible
Mausz,
I don't think that a Samsung cost factor rating of 5.4 is possible given the rating system. 5.0—perfect rating would be the maximum possible. Ergo, the highest possible Samsung score would be 3.8. Apple wins.
But, if it were possible, I see your point, but if we were to accept your extreme example of rounding to explain the discrepancy, Samsung's Overall Satisfaction Score would round down to 4 not up to 5. . . and Apple's would round up to 4, not 5, making a flawed chart.
In addition, you're ignoring the weighting. The weighting gives Apple's 4.5s more importance by 20-48% (for example Performance and Ease of Use accounts for 48% of the score) in this calculation than Samsung's 4.4s (which account for only 36%)and single 5 (over 5 would not be possible in the scoring from my understanding of the ratings system.)
If I buy one of these products now and sell it in one year, how much will it have devalued? If I sell it in two years, how much will I net?
Historically, I know, J.D. Powers knows, we all know, that Apple products hold their value, where Samsung products do not. A quick scan of eBay or Kijiji will confirm this rather neatly.
J.D. Powers new motto - "We know the price of everything and the value of nothing."
They may have to get this new motto to market soon, before Consumer Reports beats them to it.
It's sad, as both these outfits at one time were somewhat reliable, but as in any area of modern so-called journalism, you have to question everything, do your own research, make up your own mind.
Let's count the marbles: Apple has 5 5 5 5 5 2=27 Samsung has 5 3 3 4 4 4=23 I am a little marbles loving boy, I buy Apple It's true I have only $299 and can't afford to buy $399 iPad mini retina display, but I will if I save more. Where do you thing I get $299 from? It from patiently stashing $1 $5 $10 or $20 into a piggy bank any chance I have and I do it every day!
hey, all you guys missed the key words in the last sentence of JDP's email reply in a comment above:
"It is also important to note that the JDPower.com Ratings may not include all information used to determine the overall rankings and J.D. Power awards."
... which is a direct admission that there are some other secret ranking criteria being applied here.
we can only speculate what that is since JDP won't say.
hey, all you guys missed the key words in the last sentence of JDP's email reply in a comment above:
"It is also important to note that the JDPower.com Ratings may not include all information used to determine the overall rankings and J.D. Power awards."
... which is a direct admission that there are some other secret ranking criteria being applied here.
we can only speculate what that is since JDP won't say.
Let’s see… five vs. five, five vs. THREE, five vs. THREE, five vs. FOUR, and five vs. FOUR. So no, J.D. Power is lying through their teeth. If it was actually “marginally better”, Samsung’s score would be higher.
Except, by J.D. Power’s own claimed math, the weighting of cost shows that this doesn’t matter.
Demand to know their justification for stating this. On what grounds do they consider this “environment” more “cost-conscious” than the past six years (recession) where Apple beat the snot out of everyone else?
I’m glad they replied to you. Now demand from them further explanation on these points.
In the Olympics, let's say we have two athletes competing across five races.
Athlete one gets Gold, Gold, Gold, Gold, Bronze.
Athlete two gets Silver, Bronze, Silver, Bronze, Gold.
Or in terms of place on the podium, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 1/3
and 2/3, 1/3, 2/3, 1/3, 3/3
Who has the better total time? The answer is, you can't tell from what I've told you alone.
If it turns out that for the first four events the difference between the two was only a few seconds, but in the last event the difference was say a minute, then athlete two's total time would be lower.
Silly that a company can win on price alone - especially considering the difference is much less than 2x - but somehow I think Apple will survive this just fine. Would be nice to see the actual data, but the key point is that these circles are not points! They just represent relative ranking.
For years, J.D. Power was *the* expert on rankings. Then they stopped ranking Apple #1. They are obviously now "paid off dummyheads" that don't know anything about anything!!
That said, this looks like someone made a mistake, unless they have some kind of statement explaining the logic(?) of why Samsung came in first despite the lower scores.
It seems like kind of a non-story. The link shows the iPad rated highest on everything but price. Considering the minor difference, the predominant thread argument seems to come down to chest beating rights.
In the Olympics, let's say we have two athletes competing across five races.
Athlete one gets Gold, Gold, Gold, Gold, Bronze.
Athlete two gets Silver, Bronze, Silver, Bronze, Gold.
Or in terms of place on the podium, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 1/3
and 2/3, 1/3, 2/3, 1/3, 3/3
Who has the better total time? The answer is, you can't tell from what I've told you alone.
If it turns out that for the first four events the difference between the two was only a few seconds, but in the last event the difference was say a minute, then athlete two's total time would be lower.
Silly that a company can win on price alone - especially considering the difference is much less than 2x - but somehow I think Apple will survive this just fine. Would be nice to see the actual data, but the key point is that these circles are not points! They just represent relative ranking.
Comments
Mausz,
I don't think that a Samsung cost factor rating of 5.4 is possible given the rating system. 5.0—perfect rating would be the maximum possible. Ergo, the highest possible Samsung score would be 3.8. Apple wins.
But, if it were possible, I see your point, but if we were to accept your extreme example of rounding to explain the discrepancy, Samsung's Overall Satisfaction Score would round down to 4 not up to 5. . . and Apple's would round up to 4, not 5, making a flawed chart.
In addition, you're ignoring the weighting. The weighting gives Apple's 4.5s more importance by 20-48% (for example Performance and Ease of Use accounts for 48% of the score) in this calculation than Samsung's 4.4s (which account for only 36%)and single 5 (over 5 would not be possible in the scoring from my understanding of the ratings system.)
If I buy one of these products now and sell it in one year, how much will it have devalued? If I sell it in two years, how much will I net?
Historically, I know, J.D. Powers knows, we all know, that Apple products hold their value, where Samsung products do not. A quick scan of eBay or Kijiji will confirm this rather neatly.
J.D. Powers new motto - "We know the price of everything and the value of nothing."
They may have to get this new motto to market soon, before Consumer Reports beats them to it.
It's sad, as both these outfits at one time were somewhat reliable, but as in any area of modern so-called journalism, you have to question everything, do your own research, make up your own mind.
Sad, just sad.
thx
this site is so bias it's ridiculous
Appleinsider... so... what the hell are you crying about
Apple has 5 5 5 5 5 2=27
Samsung has 5 3 3 4 4 4=23
I am a little marbles loving boy, I buy Apple
It's true I have only $299 and can't afford to buy $399 iPad mini retina display, but I will if I save more. Where do you thing I get $299 from? It from patiently stashing $1 $5 $10 or $20 into a piggy bank any chance I have and I do it every day!
hey, all you guys missed the key words in the last sentence of JDP's email reply in a comment above:
"It is also important to note that the JDPower.com Ratings may not include all information used to determine the overall rankings and J.D. Power awards."
... which is a direct admission that there are some other secret ranking criteria being applied here.
we can only speculate what that is since JDP won't say.
Secret ranking criteria = Money?
Let’s see… five vs. five, five vs. THREE, five vs. THREE, five vs. FOUR, and five vs. FOUR. So no, J.D. Power is lying through their teeth. If it was actually “marginally better”, Samsung’s score would be higher.
Except, by J.D. Power’s own claimed math, the weighting of cost shows that this doesn’t matter.
Demand to know their justification for stating this. On what grounds do they consider this “environment” more “cost-conscious” than the past six years (recession) where Apple beat the snot out of everyone else?
I’m glad they replied to you. Now demand from them further explanation on these points.
In the Olympics, let's say we have two athletes competing across five races.
Athlete one gets Gold, Gold, Gold, Gold, Bronze.
Athlete two gets Silver, Bronze, Silver, Bronze, Gold.
Or in terms of place on the podium, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 1/3
and 2/3, 1/3, 2/3, 1/3, 3/3
Who has the better total time? The answer is, you can't tell from what I've told you alone.
If it turns out that for the first four events the difference between the two was only a few seconds, but in the last event the difference was say a minute, then athlete two's total time would be lower.
Silly that a company can win on price alone - especially considering the difference is much less than 2x - but somehow I think Apple will survive this just fine. Would be nice to see the actual data, but the key point is that these circles are not points! They just represent relative ranking.
No they don't!!
No they don't!!
Uh.. Yeah, They do.. Low quality ingredients.
Yup, I guess you are right. Even I prefer cheap in some cases. But you couldn't pry me away from my Apple products though...
For years, J.D. Power was *the* expert on rankings. Then they stopped ranking Apple #1. They are obviously now "paid off dummyheads" that don't know anything about anything!!
That said, this looks like someone made a mistake, unless they have some kind of statement explaining the logic(?) of why Samsung came in first despite the lower scores.
It seems like kind of a non-story. The link shows the iPad rated highest on everything but price. Considering the minor difference, the predominant thread argument seems to come down to chest beating rights.
In the Olympics, let's say we have two athletes competing across five races.
Athlete one gets Gold, Gold, Gold, Gold, Bronze.
Athlete two gets Silver, Bronze, Silver, Bronze, Gold.
Or in terms of place on the podium, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 1/3
and 2/3, 1/3, 2/3, 1/3, 3/3
Who has the better total time? The answer is, you can't tell from what I've told you alone.
If it turns out that for the first four events the difference between the two was only a few seconds, but in the last event the difference was say a minute, then athlete two's total time would be lower.
Silly that a company can win on price alone - especially considering the difference is much less than 2x - but somehow I think Apple will survive this just fine. Would be nice to see the actual data, but the key point is that these circles are not points! They just represent relative ranking.
but we know the difference in price is not big.
we also know the difference in rest is HUGE.
Uh.. Yeah, They do.. Low quality ingredients.
I don't know where you got that from but their pizzas are tasty!!
And how does that Samsung Galaxy Pizza taste?
And how does that Samsung Galaxy Pizza taste?
Very plastic-y.