[Editorial] The Ridiculous Myth Of Android Return Rates


While perusing the internet I came across a “report” on Tech Crunch by one John Biggs stating that Android, the worlds #1 mobile OS that has a user base of some 130 million and upwards of 400,000 activations daily, has a return rate of 30-40 percent. On every Android handset sold. Now, mind you, that all handsets have return rates. It’s inevitable. Consumers do have buyers remorse sometimes. That’s why carriers have those nifty 14 day return policies. But 30%-40% on every bandwagon sold is ridiculous. Not to mention that carriers would’ve long ago stopped carrying Android handsets because of all of the money that they would be losing. And Android would be nothing more than a memory. Here’s what Mr. Biggs said:

“It’s generally accepted that, on the aggregate, Android device sales will far outpace iOS sales year after year. However, there’s a dirty little secret about Android devices that most manufacturers are facing: the return rate on some Android devices is between 30 and 40 percent, in comparison to the iPhone 4′s 1.7% return rate as of Antennagate in 2010”.

Here he insinuates that most Android manufacturers are facing 30 and 40 percent return rates. Really?! Then how are they still in business?! If they’re facing those return rates on every Android handset, like Biggs’ insinuates, then why are they still selling these handsets? When almost half of them are being returned?! That’s ridiculous on the face of it. Worse, with returns like that, if these manufacturers are still making Android handsets in the face of such steep returns, they’ve got to have the WORST management teams in history(though not worse than Nokia’s current team)! Mr. Biggs is not looking to credible right now. And speaking of credibility, where did he get these figures? From Google perhaps? They do own the OS after all. Perhaps he spoke to every manufacturer and every carrier? They would know the figures wouldn’t they? No, he merely cited “a source close to the situation”. Really?! Now how credible is that Mr. Biggs? Some unknown, made up source? Your credibility is now circling the toilet bowl Mr. Biggs. And the fact that you casually threw in iPhone4 return rates in a”report” about Android? Showing a little ifanboyism are we?

Now before everybody thinks this is a personal attack on Mr. Biggs, it isn’t. It’s an attack on his “reports” credibility and total lack of any factual evidence. A bit of sensationalist reporting if you will. Strictly for clicks and views. And now reputable sites like Christian Science Monitor and Electronista are picking up this “report” as fact(Those MAC sites picking up the story and reporting it as fact… Not so reputable when it comes to reporting on Android now are they?). Hopefully Android sites such as Phandroid and Android Community have similarly debunked this “report” as more myth than fact, since a cursory glance at Google shows they’ve picked up the story as well(These sites are quite reputable). Shame on you John Biggs for “reporting” something so non-factual and shame on you Tech Crunch putting it out without someone checking to see if it’s true.

John Biggs’ story at the link below:

[Tech Crunch Report]

About The Author

Kamil M Abdullah has been a self proclaimed techie and bonafide smart phone expert nearly half of his life. Starting with the very first Sidekick(not necessarily a smart phone but close enough) to Blackberry to Symbian to Windows(Mobile & Phone 7) to Web OS to Android, he has used virtually every smart phone operating system. Kamil has also worked with computer programming in Bloomberg's Data Center and Backup Operations on their proprietary software. In his quest for further knowledge in mobile operating systems, Kamil voraciously devours any reading material on the subject he can find. Kamil is also a hip hop head to the fullest, having fallen in love with the art form from the very first "a hip hop the hibby to the hibby the hip hip the hop" and tr808 beat. He promises to use his vast powers and knowledge only for the good of mankind.