

Coke computer vs. Pepsi computer - eykanal
http://shadyacres.tumblr.com/post/12836330934/coke-computer-vs-pepsi-computer

======
raganwald
The essential point about specs is bang on, but comparing computer purchasing
to soft drinks over-trivializes it. Soft drinks have nearly zero feature
differentiation.

Lots of consumer goods have meaningful features. One dishwasher might be
quiet. Another might use very little energy. A third may heat its own water,
sanitizing the dishes. You may want a model that can be fitted with a panel to
match the cabinetry.

What dishwasher manufacturers have moved away from is specifications that do
not strongly correlate with features. How many horsepower does a dishwasher
motor have? How many chips are in its circuitry? What does it weigh? These
things are rarely front and centre, because most buyers can't draw a
connection between them and a benefit they will enjoy.

The trend is not towards brands being the only thing that matter, but rather
towards features that probide benefits. RAM and Megahertz are specifications.
Being powerful enough to do speech recognition in real time is a feature. Siri
is a benefit.

~~~
libria
Some specs matter; the problem is that they don't present their strengths
clearly or they dilute it with meaningless ones. I could send a soccer mom to
a store and tell her to prefer an SSD over 4200 RPM, i7 over Atom, 4GB RAM
over 512MB. She doesn't know what these are, but she does know which one is
better, the same way she'd know that a V6 is more jumpy than a 4-cylinder.

(edit, had RAM specs swapped)

~~~
ugh
Specs are an awful proxy.

Specs do matter insofar as they impact user experience. That relation,
however, is not linear. Diminishing returns are very common and there are also
discontinuities.

Also, there are tradeoffs to consider: noise, temperature, weight, size,
speed, battery, price, software …

You can’t have it all. That’s just not an option.

Specs are an implementation detail. They matter, sure, but the average
consumer shouldn’t try and judge products based on them. That’s destined to
fail. They should look at user experience and tradeoffs.

Companies and reviewers should try to translate the specs that were used to
implement tradeoffs into user experience. Who is this device good for? What
tradeoffs does it try to pick? Does it do a good job at that?

That’s what matters.

~~~
jiggy2011
The problem with doing that is it would require very comprehensive reviews or
for customers to very thoroughly try out all products before purchase.

For example if a new product is launched on the market and it appears to be
cheap but you know that it has a Fast Quad Core CPU and decent video hardware
, you already know in a relatively small amount of text that it will be good
for video editing , gaming and various other tasks.

If it only has a 300Mhz CPU you already know that it will not be good for any
of these tasks and you can confidently avoid it.

As another example I remember years ago seeing computer adverts which would
attempt to simplying their specs with bylines such as "Family Computer" ,
"Small business computer" , "Games Computer" etc. What if you want a PC for
use by all the family for homework/internet etc but the oldest child happens
to be an avid WoW/COD Player and Dad plans to use it to prepare accounts for
his small retail business?

~~~
ugh
It’s not so hard, really. There are a very limited number of use cases, a
limited number of tradeoffs. A long list of specs is much worse than just
writing “This machine is great if you need a lot of power for video editing
and rendering and other creative tasks. It is, however, correspondingly noisy,
hot and big, not a very good fit for mobile use or for anyone who needs a
quiet computer.” That’s so much more helpful. Specs are code in comparison.

Specs confuse, specs frighten, specs suck. They force consumers to figure out
the tradeoffs that stand behind them. That’s too much work.

~~~
jiggy2011
Not necessarily , the specs do confuse but that is mainly because the computer
market as it is at the moment is confusing.

Just to pick on the example you used, let's say I want to write a novel and
create a flyer for a local charity event. These are "creative tasks" how do I
know if this computer will be able to do that, do I really need a $2000 Mac
Pro for these?

It is big, but how big? Will it fit into the cupboard next to my desk?

Computers have a _huge_ number of use cases that will continue to grow rather
than decline, listing the suitability of a computer for each one of these
would take far too much space in a brochure if it didn't computer
manufacturers would have been marketing this way already.

(Edited for reply to next post)

I think my point is that it would be very difficult , almost impossible to
write comprehensive reviews without any specifications to work from,
especially brochure/advetising which needs to be very short.

Essentially a good spec is the normalization of a description of it's
suitability for different use cases.

For example a computer which can run Angry Birds happily but not Call of Duty
MW3 at all.. Would you describe this as a "poor games computer"?

If all I want to play is Angry Birds (and similar games) then it may be a
fantastic games computer , if I want to run COD then it isn't a suitable games
computer at all.. At least a spec listing allows me to look at the minimum
requirements of the software I want to run and know whether it is suitable or
not.

Video rigs would be overpowered for other work, but we only know that because
we understand the requirements of video editing on a computers hardware. A
layman will not necessarily know this but they will know that their computer
meets the recommended requirements for Microsoft Word and Publisher but not
for Final Cut Pro because it "doesn't contain enough ghz".

~~~
ugh
I’m a terrible review writer, really. Don’t judge me.

When I say specs I’m mostly talking about internals. Size and weight do matter
very much and those are also two things people actually understand†. CPUs,
GPUs? Not so much.

Other than that you need only a better description. Video rigs are overpowered
for other creative tasks, the review wouldn’t read as I wrote it.

—

† And now you can argue whether it’s better to actually write down numbers or
to compare devices with aircraft carriers and football fields. I think both
can be appropriate at times.

------
kitsune_
I don't agree, this is a gross over-simplification and the comparison with
Coke and Pepsi doesn't work.

Drinking a soft drink gives you an immediate, hard-wired response. Tasting
something is, well, relying on your taste buds for one. How does this
translate to something like working with a computer? It's just a dishonest and
intellectually lazy comparison.

Mac or PC, Laptop or Desktop, Battlefield 3 or browsing the web. If your
grandfather with arthritis and bad sight buys a 11.6" MacBook Air with a
1366×768 resolution and a pixel density of 135 good luck evading him at future
family ceremonies if you're the head geek of the family.

Also, I don't know about you guys, but I certainly don't want to be held
accountable for a guy ending up with Norton Antivirus just because I went "you
want a pc, uhh, it doesn't matter, just go with anything".

~~~
eykanal
A computer is a tool, like a hammer. Have you used different hammers before?
There are differences between different brands, and those differences are
typically subtle. Computers are similar; they're mostly identical, and the
differences between them (to the "consumer") is very subtle. If you buy your
near-blind grandfather a 13" macbook for reading the news, yes, things will go
badly. However, you don't need to look at the specs to know that.

I don't really know what your point is re: NAV.

~~~
Avshalom
How is '13 inch screen' not part of the specs?

Aren't hammers a counter example, yes the difference between brand is subtle,
but the difference between spec-between what it's actually good for is- large
and important.

~~~
middus
You don't need to _look at the specs_ , because you see that when you're
looking at a device. Just like you don't need to know the size of the hammer
-- you see it. I guess that's what the grandparent tried to say.

------
AdamN
It seems like it's more like Audi computer vs. Honda computer:

1\. Price matters

2\. Key metrics like HP are used in sales brochures to most buyers

3\. Metrics like 0-60 time or torque will be available for advanced buyers

------
rythie
I've seen several people who bought machines with 512Mb, not realising that
was a small amount, who then complain that their computer is very slow,
despite being brand new. It does make a difference, however, most people don't
understand the specs and top brands insist on shipping machines with poor
specs.

As a side note, I wish my iPad had more memory (it has 256Mb), because the
browser crashes on web pages with a lot of data/javascript.

------
quanticle
I'm not sure I agree. I look at the nutrition facts on the food I purchase. I
look at the specs. when I'm buying a car, and the specs. do inform my
purchasing decision. When I'm buying a computer, I do look at specs. to decide
which computer will run _my_ computational tasks most efficiently.

For me, a world without specs. would be bleak indeed.

~~~
jhferris3
While I agree with you, I think the article was talking about the nontechnical
consumers, the ones who don't understand what mhz and gigabytes mean, they
just want a computer that does what they want it to do (yes, I'm being
intentionally vague here).

That said, I'd like to think that most people/kids under the age of 20 or so
have much better grasps on a computers technical specs, at least comparable to
how most people are familiar with the relevant specifications on a car (HP,
torque, fuel efficiency, etc)

~~~
jiggy2011
Most completely non technical people will ask the advise of a friend/family
member in order to make a computer purchase even if they don't know anybody
they will ask a shop attendant to advise, these people will then interpret the
specs on their behalf.

The reason that specs don't seem to be so important in the tablet world so far
is that there really aren't many to choose from and in many cases people
simply want an ipad in which case there are really only 2 to choose from and
they are basically the same anyway.

------
jiggy2011
The main reason that specs become so important in PC purchase is because with
the IBM compatible PC there needed to be some way to differentiate between a
bewildering amount of brands and models. There needed to be a clear reason as
to why a $1000 PC was worth more money than a $500 one.

The problem was that there seemed to a spec war a few years ago (still
continues to some extent) with computer companies trying to get as many high
numbers into their ads as possible. For example allot of ads saying stuff
like:

3Ghz CPU , 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD , 128MB Graphics Card for Only £300!!!!!

Of course this would actually mean you got a Celeron , lots of basic slow RAM
, a low speed IDE HDD and a shared memory graphics card with minimal
acceleration features but of course it would sound impressive to the less
savvy buyer who had a basic notion of what the numbers meant but who didn't
really understand performance overall.

I always compare this to people who compare the performance of 2 cars by
quoting the engine displacement as the key figure for performance without
considering induction method , valve configuration, fuel delivery etc etc. Of
course cars at least have numbers like bhp and torque and bhp per ton which at
least provide something to compare, I often have people show me 2 computers of
similar price in a catalog and ask me "which one would be faster" and there is
no way I can really answer that question with much confidence.

It was also important of course because many pieces of software , especially
games would have a "minimum requirements" portion on the box.

Apple computers have always been less spec focused in their marketing , mainly
because there are fewer models to choose between, so a simple
Standard/Pro/Pro++ works just as well.

Of course specs are still important _really_ , this is evident in how much
hype is given to the CPU etc of a new smartphone when it comes out. Even apple
have a "tech specs" section for each of their computers on their website , and
usually give options for faster CPU , Extra Memory etc. When lots of android
tablets hit the market I can't really think of many others ways in which
people will distinguish between them apart from obvious stuff like screen size
and weight (which are really specs themselves anyway). You need some heuristic
which can be used for answering questions like "If I buy this tablet , how
likely will it be to still be able to run all the newest graphically intense
games in 2 years time"

The only thing that I can think of that has _really_ changed recently is that
more stuff can be offloaded to "the cloud" rather than computed locally,
obviously in those cases local hardware specs become less important _but_
specs like latency and bandwidth (especially upload) of your ISP / telco
provider suddenly become _more_ important.

------
IgorPartola
Far more important the the GHz, RAM or VRAM size or HDD size is the
construction of the machine (especially for laptops). That's where I'd spend
the time doing the research. Dell uses cheap plastic, HP has shiny screens,
Lenovo has magical alloy stuff they make the backing from, Apple sometimes
uses aluminum for its cases.

Picking out a laptop is not like buying a car, but it's not a soft drink
either. It's more like picking out clothing. Yes, quality is important, but
you also want it look and feel nice and feel that it's not going to let you
down (think stain resistant cloth, wrinkle free shirts, ties that go with
everything, etc).

~~~
jiggy2011
I think the car analogy still holds quite well here for laptops. You are
making a big assumption in saying that material/construction quality is more
important than GHz/RAM etc, this may be true for a certain segment of the
market (who are probably just buying apple everything anyway).

If I buy a laptop and it feels abit cheap then that's unpleasant and maybe I
wish I had a better one but if it is too underpowered to be able to run the
applications I need in order to do my work/play the games that I want to then
that is a total deal breaker and having it made from aluminum really isn't
going to matter.

People do this allot with car purchases and will buy cars that are ugly ,
unreliable and have cheap interiors simply because they provide enough space
for their family + dog with lots of safety features and decent gas mileage.
This is how Renault make their money.

------
rohit89
Specs are only ever irrelevant if there is only one product out there. The
analogy with Coke and Pepsi don't really work (to me anyway) because you can
try both out and can differentiate by taste. In addition, they both serve only
one purpose - to quench your thirst.

Computers, on the other hand, are expensive (you can't just try them out) and
used for a wide variety of tasks. For maximum benefit, you need to tailor it
and for that you need to know the specs. Non-techies know that these things
matter but they have no knowledge about it which is why they go to their tech
friends for help.

------
Groxx
I've learned to _immediately_ divert those questions by asking what they want
to do with their computer instead. And if they can't answer that immediately,
I ask why their current computer isn't working for them (which usually nets an
_extremely_ specific answer before the question even finishes).

Diablo 3? $++. Pong? $--. Non-work-related and no high-gpu gaming? Size--.

Non-techies tend to fall into one of these groups, and computer manufacturers
(except Apple) overcomplicate the choices to such mind-blowing degrees that
it's impossible to determine between HP36Q9X and A95i, and even if you _could_
you couldn't state your decision because it's impossible to remember or even
pronounce. Buying computers is such a horrifying experience, I really can't
blame people for remaining ignorant of the reasons behind things.

------
hkdlxndyak
Computers are to specs as wine is to specify gravity. Someone cares, but it
probably isn't you.

------
hansy
I think specs are important on products that are configurable. You measure the
value of, say, a computer by the individual parts used to assemble the
product. You remove and replace any of those parts, the value immediately
changes.

Ipods, Ipads, Kindles, etc. have no (easily) configurable parts, so the price
you see reflects all you get.

And plus, isn't software king nowadays anyway? Maybe companies like Amazon and
Apple recognize hardware may be reaching some plateau with diminishing returns
in speed, efficiency, etc. (or at least the differences between hardware
competitors is becoming more negligible over time); therefore it's irrelevant
to add a spec sheet.

------
laconian
"We’re finally getting close to customer-centric computer shopping, and
hopefully more and more manufacturers will jump on the bandwagon."

This is an awful attitude to have. People do care about specs in hindsight. If
they have a poor experience with a netbook, and it turns out that it's because
of the dog-slow Atom under the hood, they're definitely going to care. Except,
by the time the realize that they do care, they've already spent their money
and they're probably without recourse.

For those of us that _do_ understand tech specs, we shouldn't celebrate being
deprived of the ability to avoid making costly mistakes.

------
j_baker
I think this is a bit naive. It's like buying a car. Do people care if they
buy a Toyota with a V-8 engine? Absolutely. They just don't know if that's
good or bad, so they'll ask a car geek. After all, they want a car that is
fast, gets good gas milage, and doesn't break all the time, and the engine
affects all of those things. They just don't know if "Toyota with a V-8
engine" translates into those things.

Apple's biggest contribution is in making sure that the customer doesn't need
to worry about the spec, not in making specs irrelevant.

------
PostOnce
A lot of low-end Android tablets don't tell you what CPU they have. Not the
most helpful thing in the world if you're trying to develop a game.

~~~
eykanal
A very good point; what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander,
so to speak. I would love to hear an Android developer's take on the
usefulness of specs.

------
twodayslate
This may apply to phones but I disagree with "computers". A PC with better
specs is going to perform better than a PC with worse specs. Just like a
macbook pro with worse specs will perform worse than a pc laptop with better
specs (running Win7 at least).

------
jasonlotito
Anyone else think of gaming consoles when they read this?

Gaming consoles, even today, don't need to share their specs. They do, but
that's not why people by them. Very little in the way of hardware influences
people. In fact, even the BluRay part of the PS3 isn't the reason people like
the PS3. It's because they can play BluRays on it.

So, for certain people, Halo is important. For others, it's Mario. What does
this have in common with things like iPad, iPhones, etc? The product enables
you to use a specific ecosystem of features. If I buy an XBox, I can partake
in XBox Live. PS3, I can watch BluRays and use PSN.

Kinect is the same thing: the hardware really isn't important. It's what it
allows you to do.

That's what sells to people.

The problem is, when all the computers do basically the same thing, what's
their to differentiate? What's does an HP do that a Dell does not?

So, how is this different then a Mac? Well, you basically have 4 macs right
now: Mini, Air, MBP, and an iMac. The Pro is that machine for people that care
about the hardware.

The Mini is clear in what it offers. The Air, MBP, and iMac are all specific,
and the hardware features are fairly obvious, but they all enable access to
the same ecosystem. The goal here is, when you go to buy a Mac, the only thing
you need to decide is what you want to use it for (and, I firmly believe even
that will slowly erode away).

~~~
rythie
The thing is that the Console companies control the supply of games so that
only games that run fast (60fps+) are released. Basically you can't release a
game that runs slow, so it's not an issue.

BluRay is that same, it's a standard and disc should work on all players.

Computers are not the same because the supply of software is not controlled,
for example "Crysis" was released when it didn't work on most machines. In
fact many machines were not even to fit to run the OS they came with, Vista,
when they had 1GB or less of RAM - Microsoft does not stop even that.

~~~
jasonlotito
But that's the point. Console companies control the supply of games, part in
actual control, but also part in the known hardware part of things. The
hardware is what it is, and developers develop for that. It's known. The issue
with PC's is that it's unknown. Crysis wasn't bad if you had the machine for
it.

But when you look at something like what Apple is doing, and what Microsoft is
going to do with Windows 8 with the App Stores, you see things moving in that
direction.

Basically:

> Computers are not the same because the supply of software is not controlled,

Yes, but that's something that's slowly going away. App stores are making that
go away.

------
mynameishere
_Apple’s decision not to release specs with the original iPod, and again with
the iPhone and iPad, was them realizing that it just doesn’t matter._

Yeah, actually it does. What an odd thing to say.

~~~
jiggy2011
With the ipod there were only really 3 specs that mattered, storage , size and
weight. As long as the CPU is fast enough to decode MP3 in real time then it
is basically irrelevant.

The original iPhone was basically in a market of one when it was first
released, however now with more android phones becoming available people are
becoming more interested in the technical differences between them mainly
because it helps answer other questions about what will be possible with the
device.

