When Samsung first introduced the Galaxy Note in late 2011, the company floated the idea that the funny device with the 5.3-inch screen and a stylus wasn't a phone or a tablet, but something in between. At the time, Samsung claimed it had launched an entirely new class of device, the premiere entry in the "Note" category.
Once we actually got our hands on the Note however, the marketing speak evaporated and it was clear that the Galaxy Note was indeed just a big phone and a few gimmicky apps engineered to take advantage of the stylus. While we didn't think highly of the Note (we gave it a 5 out of 10) the massive handset went on to sell millions of units worldwide.
>Samsung has taken the Note's proven DNA and embiggened it to create the Galaxy Note 10.1, a Wi-Fi-only, Android 4.0 tablet with a 10.1-inch screen and a stylus.
Less than a year later, Samsung has delivered a second Note. But this isn't a phone, nor a "phablet." Rather, Samsung has taken the Note's proven DNA and embiggened it to create the Galaxy Note 10.1, a Wi-Fi-only, Android 4.0 tablet with a 10.1-inch screen and a stylus. It also ships with some specialized apps for drawing and taking notes that have been optimized to work with the pen-like appendage.
The Note 10.1 is available this week, starting at $500 for the model with 16GB of storage, and $550 for the 32GB model.
It arrives at a time when Samsung is in desperate need of some momentum within its tablet line-up. In 2011, shortly after the Galaxy line of Android tablets launched, Samsung reported it sold more than 2 million units worldwide. But it has since come to light, according to documents from the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial, that the company only sold 339,000 Galaxy tablets in the U.S. – the largest market for tablets by a wide margin – during that time: 262,000 in Q4 2010 and 77,000 in Q1 2011. Newer sales data from the first half of 2012 is more promising, but Samsung is still far, far behind Apple in the tablet market, with a 9.6 percent market share compared to Apple's 68.2 percent.


Comments
Back to top