OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Tablets Methodology v3.0
Tablets Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Tablets Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Tablets Methodology v3.0

Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB) review: 168 specs compared

Avg. price:~£570RAM capacity:2 GBInternal storage:64 GBScreen size:18.4 inchesChipset:Exynos 7580 Octa

Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 29 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB)
6.6/10

Overall score

Score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, best-of lists, expert reviews and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 35%, List score 30%, Reviews score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

35%

5.6

Technical score

30%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

5.6

Reviews score

10%

9.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 67% of tablets
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the tablet's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a tablet with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
5.6

Technical score

Technical score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

22%

5.7

Performance

20%

5.3

Display

16%

5.1

Camera

14%

5.9

Battery

12%

5.8

Connectivity

8%

7.0

Software

5%

5.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

â–¼Worse than 67%
5.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models

5.6

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.7

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (29)
21 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 16 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 30% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • samsung-galaxy-view-2gb-64gb-wifi
samsung-galaxy-view-2gb-64gb-wifi
Where to buy
    N/A~ £570
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Available versions:
2GB + 32GBCheck price
Other versions:
2GB + 64GB

What reviewers say about the Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB)

Based on 21 · 9

Reviewers enjoy it for streaming with decent sound and battery, but are split on the screen and dislike the stand.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB)

Based on 92 owners sharing their experience in online comments

70%positive10%mixed20%negative

Owners love its huge, TV-like screen for streaming, while app compatibility and its unwieldy size are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Many apps stretch to full size, zoom in, or cannot run full screen, and some show a 'not compatible' message when installing.12
  • Owners find the 18.4-inch body too big for bags, sleeves and trips out, and the stand makes it hard to fit in a sleeve.6
  • Stuck on an old Android version (5.1.1 Lollipop) that owners cannot find a way to update, so newer apps stop working.5
  • Video at 1080p can stutter or lag, and some units froze completely; owners say disabling background apps with a helper app helps.4
  • Owners call it a TV with Android rather than a real tablet, with stripped-down features, and some keep an older tablet for reading.4
  • Some units stop charging, so they only run while plugged in and then shut off, and the battery loses capacity over time.3
  • Owners find the 1080p screen shows visible pixels and looks weak for its size.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB)

Technical score
Technical score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components:

22%

5.7

Performance

20%

5.3

Display

16%

5.1

Camera

14%

5.9

Battery

12%

5.8

Connectivity

8%

7.0

Software

5%

5.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

5.6
Reviews score
5.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the tablet's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a tablet with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

6.8
RAM capacity
2 GB
Market range: <1 GB – >8 GB
This tablet has 2 GB of RAM, which is less than 61.3% of tablets and equal to 15.5% of tablets.
Process node
28 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 28 nm process, which is larger than 65.1% of tablets and equal to 17.6% of tablets.
Internal storage
64 GB
Market range: <16 GB – >256 GB
This tablet has 64 GB of internal storage, which is more than 39.1% of tablets and equal to 17% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core score
?
Chipset
Exynos 7580 Octa
This tablet runs on Exynos 7580 Octa, which is more advanced than 78.3% of tablets and equal to 0.1% of tablets.
Show more
What reviewers say
Screen resolution
1920×1080
This tablet has a 1920×1080 screen, which is less sharp than 61.1% of tablets and equal to 2.6% of tablets.
Refresh rate
60 Hz
Market range: <60 Hz – >120 Hz
This tablet has a 60 Hz screen, which is smoother than 0.1% of tablets and equal to 73.4% of tablets.
Display type
TFT LCD
This tablet uses a TFT LCD display type. 89.9% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
120 ppi
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 120 ppi, which is lower than 98.8% of tablets and equal to 0.4% of tablets.
Display glass type
Corning Gorilla Glass
This tablet protects its screen with Corning Gorilla Glass, which is more durable than 45.4% of tablets and the same as 32.8% of tablets.
Show more
What reviewers say
Optical image stabilization
no
This tablet does not support optical stabilisation. 0.4% of tablets offer this.
Main camera megapixels
N/A
Front camera megapixels
2.1 MP
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera with 2.1 MP resolution, which is lower than 52.6% of tablets and equal to 1.2% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
N/A
Optical zoom
1xxx
This tablet has 1xx optical zoom, which is stronger than 18.2% of tablets and equal to 80.9% of tablets.
Show more
What reviewers say
Battery capacity
5,700 mAh
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has 5,700 mAh battery capacity, which is smaller than 59.9% of tablets and equal to 0.2% of tablets.
Charging speed
40 W
Market range: <10 W – >45 W
This tablet charges at 40 W, which is faster than 80.3% of tablets and equal to 2.2% of tablets.
Battery life
8 hours
Market range: <7 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 8 hours, which is shorter than that of 72.2% of tablets and equal to that of 11.9% of tablets.
video playback
Wireless charging
no
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets offer this.
Fast charging
yes
This tablet supports fast charging. 43.2% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say
LTE support
no
This tablet does not have built-in LTE. 42.9% of tablets offer this.
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
This tablet connects to Wi-Fi. 0.2% of tablets offer this.
GPS
yes
This tablet has built-in GPS. 17.1% of tablets offer this.
5G connectivity
no
This tablet does not support 5G. 8.1% of tablets offer this.
NFC
no
This tablet does not include NFC. 10.8% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say
Operating system
Android
This tablet uses the Android operating system, which is more advanced than the one used by 23.2%.
Update support duration
short
This tablet offers short update support, which is shorter than the support period of 52.4% of tablets and equal to that of 47.6% of tablets.
Direct OS updates
yes
This tablet supports direct OS updates. 20.3% of tablets offer this.
On-device AI
no
This tablet does not support on-device AI. 28.3% of tablets support this capability.
App tracking protection
no
This tablet does not support app tracking protection. 28.4% of tablets offer this.
Show more
IP rating
not rated
This tablet's IP rating is not rated, which is less protected than 16.5% of tablets and the same as 83.6% of tablets.
Weight
?
Backlit keyboard
no
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.7% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
?
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
What reviewers say
Number of microphones
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This tablet has a microphone array of 1, which is more than 0.2% of tablets and equal to 54.8% of tablets.
aptX Adaptive
no
This tablet does not support aptX Adaptive. 6.9% of tablets offer this.
Dolby Atmos support
no
This tablet does not support Dolby Atmos. 31.3% of tablets support Dolby Atmos.
N. of speakers
2
Market range: <2 – >4
This tablet includes 2 speakers, which is more than in 9.8% of tablets and equal to the number in 60.8% of tablets.
FM radio
no
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftwareDesignAudio
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (Exynos 7580 Octa vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    Exynos 7,580 Octa vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 8.3 inches larger screen
    This tablet has a larger screen than the average tablet (18.4 inches vs 10.1 inches). The average tablet measures 10.1 inches.
    18.4 inches vs 10.1 inches
  • 2.22x faster charging
    This tablet charges faster than the average tablet (40 W vs 18 W). The average tablet charges at 18 W.
    40 W vs 18 W
  • Monitors battery health
    This tablet monitors battery health, while the average tablet does not. 36.7% of tablets monitor battery health.
  • 99 nits brighter screen
    This tablet is brighter than the average tablet (500 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits.
    500 nits vs 401 nits
  • 41 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (441 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    441 nits vs 400 nits
  • Supports slow-motion video
    This tablet supports slow-motion recording, while the average tablet does not. 37.3% of tablets support slow-motion recording.
  • 24.0% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.5
  • 24.0% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.5
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (Exynos 7580 Octa vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    Exynos 7,580 Octa vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 8.3 inches larger screen
    This tablet has a larger screen than the average tablet (18.4 inches vs 10.1 inches). The average tablet measures 10.1 inches.
    18.4 inches vs 10.1 inches
  • 99 nits brighter screen
    This tablet is brighter than the average tablet (500 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits.
    500 nits vs 401 nits
  • 41 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (441 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    441 nits vs 400 nits
  • Supports slow-motion video
    This tablet supports slow-motion recording, while the average tablet does not. 37.3% of tablets support slow-motion recording.
  • 2.22x faster charging
    This tablet charges faster than the average tablet (40 W vs 18 W). The average tablet charges at 18 W.
    40 W vs 18 W
  • Monitors battery health
    This tablet monitors battery health, while the average tablet does not. 36.7% of tablets monitor battery health.
  • Inferior display type
    This tablet has an inferior display type compared to the average tablet (TFT LCD vs IPS LCD). 0.00% of tablets use the superior display type.
    TFT LCD vs IPS LCD
  • No USB-C port
    This tablet does not have a USB Type-C port, while the average tablet does. 54% of tablets have one.
  • Shorter update support
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • 45.7% softer screen detail
    This tablet has softer screen detail than the average tablet (120 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has a pixel density of 221 ppi.
    120 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (Mali-T720 MP2 vs Mali-G51).
    Mali-T720 MP2 vs Mali-G51
  • No continuous video AF
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • 2 hours shorter battery life
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (8 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    video playback
    8 hours vs 10 hours
  • 20.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models

    5.6

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    21 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 16 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.6 vs 7.0
  • 20.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models

    5.6

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    21 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 16 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.6 vs 7.0
  • 10.4% worse value for money
    Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.84 vs 7.6).
    6.84 vs 7.55
  • 2.19x more expensive
    Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB) is more expensive than the average tablet (£570 vs £260).
    £570 vs £260
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (Mali-T720 MP2 vs Mali-G51).
    Mali-T720 MP2 vs Mali-G51
  • 2 GB less RAM
    This tablet has less RAM than the average tablet (2 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    2 GB vs 4 GB
  • 2x larger process node
    This tablet has a larger process node than the average tablet (28 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet is built on 14 nm.
    28 nm vs 14 nm
  • 20% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1.6 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1.6 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 2 fewer GPU execution units
    This tablet has less GPU execution units than the average tablet (2 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 years older
    This tablet was released earlier than the average tablet (2015 vs 2019). The average tablet was released in 2019.
    November 2015
    2015 vs 2019
  • Inferior display type
    This tablet has an inferior display type compared to the average tablet (TFT LCD vs IPS LCD). 0.00% of tablets use the superior display type.
    TFT LCD vs IPS LCD
  • 45.7% softer screen detail
    This tablet has softer screen detail than the average tablet (120 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has a pixel density of 221 ppi.
    120 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • 50% slower touch response
    This tablet samples touch more slowly than the average tablet (60 Hz vs 120 Hz). The average tablet samples touch at 120 Hz.
    60 Hz vs 120 Hz
  • Less sharp display
    This tablet has a less sharp screen than the average tablet (1920×1080 vs 1920×1200).
    1,920×1,080 vs 1,920×1,200
  • Less vivid contrast
    This tablet has less contrast than the average tablet (1000:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet has a contrast ratio of 1015:1.
    1,000:1 vs 1,015:1
  • No continuous video AF
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • No manual exposure control
    This tablet does not support manual exposure, while the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets support manual exposure.
  • 2.9 MP lower front resolution
    This tablet has a lower-resolution front camera than the average tablet (2.1 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has a front camera of 5 MP.
    2.1 MP vs 5 MP
  • No burst mode
    This tablet does not support burst mode, the average tablet does. 60.6% of tablets support burst mode.
  • No backside-illuminated sensor
    This tablet does not have a BSI sensor, while the average tablet does. 52.6% of tablets have a BSI sensor.
  • No timelapse video
    This tablet does not support timelapse video, while the average tablet does. 57.5% of tablets support timelapse video.
  • 2 hours shorter battery life
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (8 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    video playback
    8 hours vs 10 hours
  • 13.6% smaller battery capacity
    This tablet has a smaller battery capacity than the average tablet (5,700 mAh vs 6,600 mAh). The average tablet offers 6,600 mAh of battery capacity.
    5,700 mAh vs 6,600 mAh
  • No USB-C port
    This tablet does not have a USB Type-C port, while the average tablet does. 54% of tablets have one.
  • No face recognition
    This tablet does not have face recognition, the average tablet does. 56.4% of tablets support face recognition.
  • Older Bluetooth version
    This tablet has an older Bluetooth version than the average tablet (4.1 vs 5).
    4.1 vs 5
  • No Ethernet support
    This tablet does not have Ethernet support, the average tablet does. 76.5% of tablets support Ethernet.
  • Shorter update support
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • No picture-in-picture mode
    This tablet does not support picture-in-picture, the average tablet does. 61.4% of tablets support picture-in-picture.
  • No full-page screenshots
    This tablet does not support full-page screenshots, the average tablet does. 53% of tablets support full-page screenshots.
  • No location privacy
    This tablet does not support location privacy, while the average tablet does. 76.7% of tablets offer this.
  • No dark mode
    This tablet does not support dark mode, while the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets offer this.
  • 3.9 mm thicker
    This tablet is thicker than the average tablet (11.9 mm vs 8 mm). The average tablet is 8 mm thick.
    11.9 mm vs 8 mm
  • 100.5 mm wider
    This tablet is wider than the average tablet (275.8 mm vs 175.3 mm). The average tablet is 175.3 mm wide.
    275.8 mm vs 175.3 mm
  • 75.8 mm taller
    This tablet is taller than the average tablet (275.8 mm vs 200 mm). The average tablet is 200 mm tall.
    275.8 mm vs 200 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
cnet.com
✓ explicit
06/11/2015
Full review · TV alternative
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a big Android tablet that doubles as a TV in small homes, but its cheap-feeling stand and high price are hard to overlook.
6.0
theverge.com
✓ explicit
06/11/2015
Full review · Streaming-focused tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is an interesting but flawed streaming tablet, with a 1080p screen that looks soft up close and a price too high to recommend.
9.0
gizmodo.com
≈ estimated
06/11/2015
Hands-on review · TV-tablet hybrid
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a fun TV-tablet that suits kitchens and coffee tables, though its fixed stand and home screen get in the way.
6.0
techradar.com
≈ estimated
28/10/2015
Hands-on test · Big-screen streaming tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is an unusual streaming tablet whose plastic body and Full HD screen feel more budget-level than the Samsung name suggests.
7.0
expertreviews.co.uk
≈ estimated
28/10/2015
Hands-on review · Kitchen media screen
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a kitchen-friendly media screen whose fixed stand suits watching from a distance, though the software still feels unfinished.
6.0
t3.com
≈ estimated
28/10/2015
Early hands-on · Bulky media tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View fills a niche for streaming and light gaming at home, but its plastic build, heavy body and less crisp screen hold it back.
4.0
alphr.com
≈ estimated
28/10/2015
Hands-on test · TV-style tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a big screen for streaming at home, but its flimsy stand and unclear purpose make it hard to recommend.
phonearena.com
04/01/2016
Not graded yet
5.0
spiegel.de
≈ estimated
10/12/2015
Full review · Portable streaming TV
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is more a portable TV for streaming than a tablet, but its glossy Full HD screen and fixed stand are too limited for the price.
7.0
bild.de
≈ estimated
28/12/2015
Full test · Giant video screen
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View suits watching internet video, yet it is neither a proper tablet, a TV nor a computer.
5.0
netzwelt.de
≈ estimated
11/12/2015
Photo review · Oversized tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View stretches the tablet format to 18 inches, but its two-angle stand and 2.5 kg weight limit how it can be used.
6.5
geeksandcom.com
✓ explicit
14/03/2016
Hands-on test · Home movie screen
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View works well as a movie screen for Kodi and games, but its 2.65 kg weight, fixed stand and rear speakers hold it back.
7.1
notebookcheck.biz
✓ explicit
20/08/2016
Lab test · Display measurements
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View's bright, flicker-free 18.4-inch screen covers nearly all sRGB colours, but its slow response and cool whites suit TV more than gaming.
6.0
geeko.lesoir.be
≈ estimated
30/03/2016
Hands-on test · Giant-screen tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View suits casual viewers who want films and series on a big screen, but its weak sound and missing HDMI hold it back.
7.2
geekbecois.com
✓ explicit
09/04/2016
Trial report · Video-focused tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View works well for watching shows, but its fixed stand and heavy body make it a weak everyday tablet.
8.0
smartworld.it
≈ estimated
19/01/2016
Full review · Entertainment tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View suits few buyers given its price; its TV-like concept is interesting, but the screen and fixed stand hold it back.
6.0
hardware.info
≈ estimated
02/05/2016
Full test · Movable video screen
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a portable Wi-Fi screen for streaming at home, but plastic build, washed-out colours and a high price hold it back.
5.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
31/10/2015
Hands-on preview · Movable display
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a fun, movable screen for streaming around the house, though its heavy plastic body and fixed stand are drawbacks.
6.0
galaxyclub.nl
≈ estimated
19/01/2016
Full review · Portable TV tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a fun portable TV for streaming, email and light gaming, but its low-quality screen and high price spoil it.
6.0
androidplanet.nl
≈ estimated
28/10/2015
Hands-on test · Giant multimedia tablet
Verdict
The Samsung Galaxy View is a large, smooth home screen for Netflix and the news, though its low resolution and high price limit it.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB)

  • Massive 18.4-inch display is excellent for streaming movies and TV shows.
  • Built-in handle makes it easy to move between rooms despite its size.
  • Large on-screen keyboard with a dedicated numeric keypad improves typing ease.
  • Generally good battery life for its size, often lasting 8 hours or more.
  • Integrated custom UI aggregates popular streaming services like Netflix and Hulu.
  • Dual 4-watt speakers provide loud and clear audio for media consumption.

What customers don't like about Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB)

  • Non-removable kickstand prevents the device from laying flat and makes it awkward to hold.
  • Heavy weight (nearly 6 pounds) makes it cumbersome for traditional tablet use.
  • 1080p resolution results in low pixel density, making text appear 'chunky' up close.
  • Lack of essential ports such as HDMI and standard USB (uses a proprietary AC adapter).
  • Plastic build quality feels cheap and uninspiring for its original price point.
  • Many Android apps are not optimized for such a large display, leading to scaling issues.

Verdict

The Samsung Galaxy View is a massive 18.4-inch Android 5.1 tablet designed primarily as a portable media station, featuring a Full HD (1920 x 1080) TFT LCD display and dual 4W stereo speakers. It is powered by a 1.6GHz octa-core Exynos 7580 processor with 2GB of RAM and 64GB of internal storage, which can be expanded via a microSD slot. Its main advantages include the expansive screen for immersive streaming, a built-in kickstand with an integrated carrying handle, and a 5,700mAh battery providing up to 8 hours of video playback. However, it is hindered by its heavy 5.8-pound weight, a non-removable stand that makes it bulky to store, and a lack of HDMI input for use as an external monitor.

Compare Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB) with other tablets

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Samsung Galaxy View WiFi (2GB + 64GB) and other tablets

No results found