Is there a giant smear campaign going on with android?

[slackerinabox]

So I've recently jumped off the yearly $1,000 upgrade carrier model teat and instead bought 4 android phones unlocked. Saved quite a bit of money by buying non-Samsung refurbs (brands include LG, Moto, and Sony) and can say with great confidence that Android's a great equalizer - we're all happy with the phones as long as we're open to some compromise (the $150 xperia will have a worse cam than a $700 s8, duh. bought a lumix for that). But you wouldn't think that these phones are adequate compromises web researching these phones (particularly sony's, of which I now own 2). Terrible reviews, horrible users experiences, and oddly mediocre expert reviews.

In fact my wife's loving her xperia and prefers it to her old, many times more expensive phone we returned to the carrier. This is a 2 star average rated phone. Of course, this is very anecdotal, but something doesn't smell right.. Samsung have a bunch of interns trashing the rivals maybe?

 

[gorcorps]

So I've recently jumped off the yearly $1,000 upgrade carrier model teat and instead bought 4 android phones unlocked. Saved quite a bit of money by buying non-Samsung refurbs (brands include LG, Moto, and Sony) and can say with great confidence that Android's a great equalizer - we're all happy with the phones as long as we're open to some compromise (the $150 xperia will have a worse cam than a $700 s8, duh. bought a lumix for that). But you wouldn't think that these phones are adequate compromises web researching these phones (particularly sony's, of which I now own 2). Terrible reviews, horrible users experiences, and oddly mediocre expert reviews.

In fact my wife's loving her xperia and prefers it to her old, many times more expensive phone we returned to the carrier. This is a 2 star average rated phone. Of course, this is very anecdotal, but something doesn't smell right.. Samsung have a bunch of interns trashing the rivals maybe?

I think it's more of a case of people being used to top tier tech, and often they have to "downgrade" when there's is broken or something. I don't hear that many people complaining of mid-range phones who have always had mid-range phones, it's the ones that had a high end phone and had to downgrade for one reason or another. Ignorance is bliss and all that.

As far as professional reviews go, often they review them as soon as they come out and never touch them again. If phone updates have made the phone more stable over time, you'll never see that in a professional review... you only get a sense of what it was like at release and that's it.

Last but not least, people are much more likely to submit a review when they have a problem vs. when they don't. If a phone does exactly what you expect it to, it doesn't feel special so you don't really think about leaving a review. But if you get one that isn't working right, you'd be much more likely to leave a bad review so others hear what problems you had. So it's sometimes hard to trust online reviews because of that skew.

 

[Commodus]

So I've recently jumped off the yearly $1,000 upgrade carrier model teat and instead bought 4 android phones unlocked. Saved quite a bit of money by buying non-Samsung refurbs (brands include LG, Moto, and Sony) and can say with great confidence that Android's a great equalizer - we're all happy with the phones as long as we're open to some compromise (the $150 xperia will have a worse cam than a $700 s8, duh. bought a lumix for that). But you wouldn't think that these phones are adequate compromises web researching these phones (particularly sony's, of which I now own 2). Terrible reviews, horrible users experiences, and oddly mediocre expert reviews.

In fact my wife's loving her xperia and prefers it to her old, many times more expensive phone we returned to the carrier. This is a 2 star average rated phone. Of course, this is very anecdotal, but something doesn't smell right.. Samsung have a bunch of interns trashing the rivals maybe?

I don't think so. The problem is that there are many low-cost Android phones that aren't just using lower-cost parts, but are clearly not getting their designers' full attention.

It's great when you get something like, say, a Moto G, where it's clear that the company cares about providing a good experience to people who can't afford a $700 flagship. It's another when it feels like the company is making a $200 phone simply to say it has a phone in that market segment. And while I hope there are exceptions, many of the LG and Sony devices I've seen fall into that second category.

There are a few ingredients I see as important to a good budget phone: healthy performance (like the Snapdragon 600-series chips or Apple's A9), a decent camera (not S8/iPhone 8 good, but reliable) and a commitment to supporting the software for a while after launch. One of the perpetual problems with budget Android phones is that they tend to get even less support than the flagships: I don't know how people can accept that they might get one major OS update on a low-end Android phone before it's abandoned.

 

[StrangerGuy]

When Oppo can put out A53-only garbage that is barely cheaper than a brand new S7, worse in every other way and still outsell Samsung in China...Should tell you how intelligent people are when it comes to phones.

 

[shortylickens]

I've had several Xperias and they all worked fine. My only vice is needing the latest and greatest hardware along with a waterproof body and the most recent Android version.
I dont know if theres a smear campaign going on but I am always smart enough to review thoroughly before buying.