Slashdot Mirror
Do Specs Matter Anymore For the Average Smartphone User?
ourlovecanlastforeve writes: While reviewing a recent comparison of the Nexus 5 and the iPhone 6, OSNews staffer Thom Holwerda raises some relevant points regarding the importance of specs on newer smartphones. He observes that the iPhone 6, which is brand new, and the Nexus 5 launch apps at about the same speed. Yes, they're completely different platforms and yes, it's true it's probably not even a legitimate comparison, but it does raise a point: Most people who use smartphones on a daily basis use them for pretty basic things such as checking email, casual web browsing, navigation and reminders. Those who use their phones to their maximum capacity for things like gaming are a staunch minority. Do smartphone specs even matter for the average smartphone user anymore? After everyone releases the biggest phone people can reasonably hold in their hand with a processor and GPU that can move images on the display as optimally as possible, how many other moons are there to shoot for?
Waiting till all phones are IP68 rated so I can drop it dunny, wipe it off on my dusty trousers and go back to the bar without a care.
The specs that matter to me are things like battery life, external storage (Micro SD Card) support and durability. These are things that many manufacturers seem to not be focusing on. They'd rather shave another 0.2 mm off the phone just so they could say it's thinner than last year, as opposed to leaving those 0.2mm on an maybe have better battery life, or be able to make the thing waterproof or add functions that really matter to me. I know battery life has gotten a lot better, but the way I see it, we could have a phone that lasted through 3 or 4 days of actual use if they just would have stopped trying to make it thinner once they hit the 1cm mark. And I will never buy a phone that doesn't support SD cards. (or whatever the popular form of removable media is in the future).
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
With the critical caveat that cellular data caps tend to make even the biggest assholes in fixed broadband look like an improvement. Contemporary wireless data standards can, indeed, hit very impressive peak rates; but you'd better not be planning on doing any bulk data transfers, nor should you necessarily be optimistic about ping times.
When it was a question of phone, it was mostly Nokias that were inexpensive, worked well, battery held up days. Then we had the SMS craze that gave us better screens and a better keyboard. These were purchased mostly for weight and for look, like a jewelry piece. They lasted years until someone grew tired of it, after the 3rd battery change.
Now, the best correlation would be the computer industry. In the 90s, a computer would last 3 years until a major paradigm shift and a break to a much better CPU/GPU/HDD. Now, the Average Joe doesn't need the latest greatest 3K$ computer, (s)he can take a 1K$ computer and be happy for years with it.
The phone industry gets there slowly too. There are major speed advances, miniaturization, optimizations, and a phone you'd be tempted to change every year doesn't need to be changed anymore at such breakneck speed, however the industry is still improving with users demanding even more, so we're not there yet. My iPhone 4 still works relatively well, although it shows its age by not running the latest apps as fast as a new phone can. It's more than 10x slower than the current 6 in most categories, and apps are getting to use that speed. My battery life is 2 days of normal use, however, it drains quickly if I start to connect to Facebook or Safari, or other heavy-duty modern applications. But I just look at my wife's 4S and it's leaps beyond by 4, and it's merely a year later ... We could probably keep it 1-2 more years, or even more, depending on what the modern apps expect of the phone.
I'm giving the iPhone as example. This applies to any given phone that's using 3rd party tools and apps. I noticed the upgrade pace is slowing in users. You need a real shift in order to get a user to switch these days, where it was ridiculous _not_ to shift every year 3-4-5 years ago.
I actually sat down and thought about this, and I think software obsolescence is a big factor. Apple supports phones with new OS releases for four years. (Which is nice by phone standards but kind of shameful by any other measure. Something that a pleateau in specs might fix, but I digress.) You might get a year or so of reasonable compatibility beyond that but we're already seeing apps that start at iOS 8.
If you're spending £600 on the latest iPhone at 64GB, that's £150 per supported year
If you're spending £500 on last year's 5S at 32GB, that's £166 per supported year
If you're spending £400 on a 5C at 32GB, if you can still find one, that's £200 per supported year.
Viewed as "renting the device" for a certain number of years of faithful service, you really are better off going with the newest model. I'm not sure about the Android or Windows Phone situation though.
(As you can guess I've been doing this calculation to figure out which phone I should buy. I would probably be on an iPhone 5C already if I wasn't worried about it running out of support before I pay it off.)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Do smartphone specs even matter for the average smartphone user anymore?
Generally speaking no they do not. I would argue that they never really did aside from plainly obvious things like screen size or ability to access data. Certain features are basically table stakes (good screen, camera, adequate storage, etc) but it's pointless to pay for features I'm not going to need or use. Sure I'm happy if the phone is faster but I don't really give a crap how many Mhz the processor has or how much RAM it has unless it somehow gets in my way. I want enough performance that I can do the activities I want without the perception that the phone is holding me back. Whether the Samsung or the Apple device has marginally higher screen resolution is not something I care about at all unless the difference is very noticeable.
Personally though I wish the phone makers (Apple I'm looking at you) would get over this obsession with making the phone as thin as possible and put a bigger battery in the damn things. There is a reason companies like Mophie are making a lot of money selling battery cases. Lots of us value longer battery life over thinness and weight.
There's also crapware to consider. The Nexus 5 is a good phone because you can mostly, or maybe only, get it from the Google Play store. If you buy a Samsung Galaxy S-whatever, an HTC One, a Motorola Droid, and so forth, chances are good that you're getting it from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile and they've taken any chance it had of not sucking and blown it to hell by adding so much junk.
I have an HTC One Max. I love the phone. But with a quad core ARM processor and 2GB of RAM, I need a task manager in the background set to insane-frenzy-autokill for the thing to be useful. Otherwise I get twenty services running in the background and everything slows to a crawl. It works wonderfully, but only because of the task manager I installed. Out of the box it's shit. I'm thinking of taking CyanogenMod for a spin, but I'm concerned that the camera driver support won't be as good as HTC's. Even if it does work, 97% of smart phone owners aren't going to install a custom ROM on their phone any more than someone buying a PC from Dell or HP is going to install vanilla Windows (or Arch Linux or something) to avoid all of their prepackaged garbage.
The only other headache I have is that Android applications don't handle switching wifi sources well. If I move between two wireless access points, all of my applications give "network connection lost" errors until I manually kill the application and restart it.
Yup. In many cases, the newer SoCs in phones have improved performance-per-watt.
Not always though... If you want amazing performance-per-watt, you don't want a flagship SoC, you want a midrange one. The quad Cortex-A7 Snapdragon 400 blows away any member of the 600 or 800 family in terms of battery performance. This is, among other reasons, why most of the Android Wear OEMs have chosen Snapdragon 400 units and disabled the unnedded cores. (Motorola was the only exception, and their usage of an OMAP3 has led to major criticisms of battery life since it's made on an ancient manufacturing process and the Cortex-A8 is significantly less power-efficient than the A7 even on the same manufacturing process.)
I have a device with a 2.5 GHz Snapdragon 801. Most of the time I've capped the CPU frequency at 1.5-1.7 GHz and don't notice a difference.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I disagree ... my ability to have a spare battery (which allows me to charge it while using the phone without having an annoying cord attached to the phone) and SD card is more important *to me* than longer battery life and a thinner phone and a better camera. For the most part, those things are irrelevant, my phone battery life is 'good enough' and my phone size is 'thin enough' and my phone camera is 'good enough'. Only smug elitist have to have what they consider to be the best, in my opinion. For 90% of the population, 'good enough' is good enough.
For example, many people only use their phone camera to post to the Internet with no editing ,, so anything about about 4MB really doesn't gain anyone anything. People who want a quality camera buy a camera .. people who want to take pictures of their food use their phone. Granted, I wouldn't knowingly buy a phone with a really crappy camera, but even my Samsung Gear 2 watch takes pictures suitable for posting on Facebook. Now, I've taken some great pictures with my Samsung 4, just got back from a motorcycle trip to San Francisco and took some amazing coastal panoramas with it.
Specs are important, but not everyone cares about the same specs. Some people don't care as much about battery life or camera quality. I am interested int he Samsung Active because it's water resistant.. It's nice to have a wide variety of phones.
Which is why I buy Android phones, they offer the most choices of any type of smartphone. More vendors, more options, more price ranges. I can move from one vendor to another and not loose the apps I've bought.
There is nothing in the Apple specs that provides that capability. And why I'll never buy an iPhone. No matter how amazing their camera is.
I have a dSLR and specialty lenses for amazing. And no .. it's not the 'best' camera out there either. Just one that is 'good enough'.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
And thats what youngsters completely miss; in the 1981, 640k was still supercomputer territory. People who imagined it would be standard/below specs in under a decade were laughed at the same way people who predicted that cellular phones would become cool and fashionable.
In the 1990s, a TB of hard drive space in a single system was something that was only achieved through RAID arrays.
In the early 2000s, the idea of cellphone application store that wasn't an utter piece of garbage was worthy of being mockery.
In the early 2010s, "wearable tech" was just another stupid fad. The fact that it included things like "VR" and "watches" made it all the more absurd.