Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Cellphones Android IOS Iphone Technology

Do Specs Matter Anymore For the Average Smartphone User? 253

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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do Specs Matter Anymore For the Average Smartphone User?

Comments Filter:
  • ObBillGates (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:16AM (#47972463)

    640K ought to be enough for anybody.

    • See: Wirth's Law. [wikipedia.org]

    • Actually, when talking about telephones, he said: "ten keys ought to be enough for anybody".
      • BTW did you know that the touchtone ( DTMF ) actually allows for 16 keys. 0-9, octothorpe (#), star (*), and A-D.

  • Specs? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:19AM (#47972477)
    I have to wear specs to read anything on my smartphone these days.
    • I have to wear specs to read anything on my smartphone these days.

      Same here. I've derided the thought of a "phablet" like some friends have, I wonder how they hell they put those comfortably in their front pockets and still sit without crushing them.

      But, more and more, I find I have to carry 'readers' around with me to do much on the phone other than talk on it.

      I don't use my phone for much more than text or voice, but with the new iPhone 6, I'm gonna give a look at screen size increase and see what fits

    • That's why Google invented Google Cardboard for you!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:21AM (#47972491)

    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.

    • by unrtst ( 777550 )

      IP68 would be good, though the SGS5 IP67 is decent... why aren't (almost) all phones doing that?

      With the size of the phones, I'd like to see MSATA support on some select models, but I also think Ubuntu's dream of a phone that is also your desktop is something viable (feels inevitable to me, but I won't be surprised if it never happens because of some other advancement).

  • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:24AM (#47972513) Homepage Journal

    Just like PCs what matters has shifted.
    On the desktop speed is becoming less important while video is becoming slightly more important thanks to GPU compute being used for transcoding video and of course games.
    Laptops cpu speed is less important than display quality, graphics performance, battery life, and weight.
    Oh phones it is really all about the screen and battery life for most people.
    CPUs right now are fast enough for majority of people. Of course there are users that need the fastest CPU, GPU and so on and others that need the lowest possible power draw.

    • Ding.

      We have a winner.

      CPUs and GPUs do matter for things like battery usage and screen quality though(well, GPUs do; if you have a 1440p screen your GPU better be able to cope with it). Also memory still matters in some ways. I'm kind of disappointed that the iPhone 6 is still 1gb of RAM, but I suspect that has more to do with issues of power consumption than it does Apple being cheap.

      It's all a balancing act, and if the final goal isn't UX, then everything is going to come crashing down.

    • by Tyr07 ( 2300912 )

      Actually for me speed on the desktop is becoming increasingly important.

      Either it's sloppy coders or just the evolution of software but I'm finding more and more I'm waiting because of my CPU.
      Triple core at 3.8 GHZ wasn't enough, it's an overclocked 3.0.

      So I'm clocked stock at 4.0 with 8 cores now, and my CPU is sufficient for now. There are still
      times where I'm waiting on the CPU although is a very small wait, I'll likely increase the speed of it at some point.

      Sure, certain tasks are strictly on my GPU, vi

    • by jonnyj ( 1011131 )

      At the high end, processor, RAM and GPU specs no longer matter for most people: fast enough is fast enough. Some specs still matter, though, even at the high end: battery life, camera quality, built quality, water resistance (or lack thereof). At the lower and middle end, specs still matter. Too many cheaper phones can't run current versions of important software, grind to a halt if many apps are run together or have screens that are, frankly, poor.

      In maybe 3-4 years, even low-end phones will be good enough

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo AT world3 DOT net> on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @09:09AM (#47972823) Homepage

      I think there is a desire for more processing speed to make things like voice recognition faster and more accurate. It's tempting to think that specialist DSPs will accelerate those things, but if history has taught us anything about processors it's that generic always seems to win. Clever tile rendering graphics cards and dedicated physics processors were quickly eclipsed by the raw power of GPUs. Dedicated audio processors made sense once, now a quad core CPU handles it.

      • Isn't voice recognition done server-side just now? Having enough power to have Siri running locally, and therefore not dependent upon a good network connection, would be nice.

    • The specs matter when what you are doing needs is.
      The new iPhone has a bigger screen so that means more pixels to manage. So you need a better GPU.
      Now the OS can make a difference as well. iPhone focuses on app experience, android on app performance. Both are good and have their trade offs.
      So the iOS device may need more specs to do the same as the android. But that is expected as to get the better experience it needs to do more.

      However if what you do is good enough. Don't upgrade.

    • This is a popular sentiment, and it is true in the simple sense that if other people are satisfied with 3 GHz CPU:s then you will be satisfied too.

      This hides the real reason why clock speeds of new CPU designs are no longer increasing at the rate that that they used to. The reasons are basically that they current way of making chips has largely run its course down to a dead end where it is not feasible to increase the clock speed. Maybe someone will think of a better way to make circuits, but for now we're

  • Taking the article-s premise as correct for the moment - it's certainly plausible - that might imply that we're entering a phase where the technological improvements in smartphones aren't used to cram more silicon in there at higher clock speeds, but to keep us on an even keel and improve battery life. There were whiffs of this at Apple's last event - the focus on the 20nm process and improved APIs over raw performance - and there would be precident. Remember about five years ago when laptops were suddenly

  • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:27AM (#47972521) Homepage
    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).
  • Please... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PvtVoid ( 1252388 )
    ... get over your fucking phone. It's a convenient electronic bauble, not the center of your fucking existence.
    • by laird ( 2705 )

      That's true of everything but minimal food and shelter.

      But people use their phones a lot more than any other device, other than perhaps a car or shoes, so it's rational that they want to optimize them.

    • by Tyr07 ( 2300912 )

      Actually I think you need to get over the fact that people like their phones, their features and talking about them.

      They're not the ones getting angry.

  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo AT world3 DOT net> on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:29AM (#47972547) Homepage

    People care mostly about features. Cameras are good enough for most people, but some are faster than others and have things like optical stabilization and batter automatic settings / post processing. As far as performance helps this stuff, it matters.

    Other specs I'm sad to say don't seem to matter much. The iPhone 6 has a very low resolution screen for a high end phone, with pretty much everyone else at that size being 1080p now. Yet, it doesn't seem to matter... Not because you can't see the difference, because you can, but because people buy it more for the fact that it is an iPhone than because of the spec. On Android it matters, on iPhone I suppose you don't really have a choice.

    • Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)

      by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdpNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @09:00AM (#47972745) Journal

      Look at it this way - since Apple is the only company selling iPhones, once the display is so good you can't see the pixels there's no rational reason to make the resolution higher as that just increases costs and slows performance with no benefit to the user, and Apple's all about optimizing user experience. In the Android market, there are a bunch of manufacturers all losing money trying to compete in a cut-throat market, so somebody's going to push the screen resolution just so they can put a bigger number on the box and try to get sales that way. And most consumers won't realize that they're buying pixels they can't see, and getting slower performance and shorter battery life, because the manufacturer sure isn't going to put that on the box.

      Phones aren't just about specs. Anyone can put a bigger display on a phone - that's easy! The challenge is in making the right tradeoffs between screen, battery, CPU, GPU, camera, etc., to give the best user experience balanced with battery life and size. And Apple is great at making those tradeoffs, because they can apply resources to do "impossible" things, like buying 10,000 CNC mills to mill their phones' "unibody" frames from solid metal in mass production, when any sane phone company would use injection molded plastic because that's cheap and easy. So Apple changed the rules, and makes phones that no other manufacturer can physically make, and they got people to care about it because it lets them make phones that are beautiful and slim. Ditto the innovations in the glass, display, etc. That's not to say that the other companies don't innovate - they do, but they tend to do less interesting, more incremental stuff, like pushing clock speed or screen resolution up a bit, and they leave most of the R&D up to Google and Intel.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        Thing is the iPhone 6 is only 326 PPI, while the 6 Plus is 401 PPI. If you couldn't see any improvement beyond the old Retina display level of about 320 PPI then why bother going to 401 PPI for the 6 Plus?

        The 6 Plus is basically an admission that the whole Retina display thing was nonsense. If you compare a 320 PPI display to a 400 or 500 PPI one you can see the difference at typical viewing distances. That's all there is to it, everything else was just hype.

        • It seems that you forgot that when the retina display first came out, everything else was roughly 150 dpi. Those 300 dpi screens were a massive improvement. Now that all phones have good screens, it's not a big deal.
        • Thing is the iPhone 6 is only 326 PPI, while the 6 Plus is 401 PPI. If you couldn't see any improvement beyond the old Retina display level of about 320 PPI then why bother going to 401 PPI for the 6 Plus?

          With that resolution, apps have the choice of mapping 1 point = 2 pixels or 1 point = 3 pixels, so the bigger screen can be used to hold much more information at a slightly smaller point size and original quality, or the same information at much higher point size and higher quality.

    • by sphealey ( 2855 )

      - - - - - Cameras are good enough for most people, but some are faster than others and have things like optical stabilization and batter automatic settings / post processing. As far as performance helps this stuff, it matters. - - - - -

      That's true, but note that the spec war arguments tend to focus on megapixels. Which beyond 8MP is totally irrelevant to anyone except a professional photographer, but the frothing over "mine has more MP than yours" is intense.

      sPh

      • I'd disagree with "irrelevant to anyone except a professional photographer". The real problem is not proffesionals vs amateurs but that the usable megapixels of many small cameras is far lower than the nominal megapixels making the nominal megapixels pretty much meaningless to anyone (including proffesionals).

        More usable megapixels are good for pretty much any camera user but the only way to get significantly them is to make the whole camera (sensor and lens) larger and that is a price smartphone users are

        • by sphealey ( 2855 )

          OK, perhaps I should qualify that with "assuming the camera has a decent quality sensor". Although since Apple and Samsung do, that seems a bit redundant for a discussion about spec warriors. If someone is going to claim that their Nogood Phone Ltd QLX8732 with the 897MP sensor that produces images worse than 110 film is competing with the 5S and the S5 then I can't help them.

          The fundamental point being that 98% of photos taken today are only ever seen on Facebook or similar, and those services downsampl

  • Long/Short comment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by del_diablo ( 1747634 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:31AM (#47972561)

    Yes. Specs do matter. If the hardware is bottlenecked in anything the OS really needs: Anybody remember those CD drives that locks the system IO while attempting to read? Or what it felt like going from a HDD to a SSD?
    There is also a few slashdot articles about significant app launch gain by using a faster SD card over the internal storage, due shitty design

    And yet, the answer should be:
    No: We should already be past the issue. And software should have solved the issue long time ago. Browsers should almost expect to be used on some of the early Android devices, and then take advantage of any speedup. And more.

    • But android is getting more and more dependent on online services (Export import contacts or notes in a file? use of device as usb storage without funky protocols? dev tools non free?) and the other major OSes were not free in the first place. App ecosystems resemble the shareware scene of the 90s with all its good and bad effects.

      That means that if marketing decides you can bloat the thing to make people buy newer phones you can do it.

      So specs may matter.

    • Yes. Specs do matter. If the hardware is bottlenecked in anything the OS really needs: Anybody remember those CD drives that locks the system IO while attempting to read? Or what it felt like going from a HDD to a SSD?

      They do but only when comparison to similar OS . As we've seen with the recent Quad core, 2 GB ram, etc specs from Android mfg's that still stutter while another OS brand only has a dual core and the paltry 1GB ram but yet is optimized so it runs very smooth and has a great user experience out of the box.

    • Anybody remember those CD drives that locks the system IO while attempting to read? Or what it felt like going from a HDD to a SSD?

      Pepperidge Farm Remembers

  • Comm specs matter.

    It's kind of hard to use a GSM phone on a CDMA network, or vice versa. Internet dependence on EDGE vs. UTMS vs. LTE? Also kind of matters. 802.11a vs. 802.11n/g also kind of matters.

  • Specs don't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:39AM (#47972603)

    The experience does.

    When the experience is good, specs don't matter.

    When someone has a bad experience or sees someone else have a better experience they lack, then specs matter.

    For example, I'm going to assume resolution is going to stop mattering with the 6+ having 1080p (surely 4k/8k will be superfluous here, right?), until phones can emit 3D holograms. But they can work on other metrics till then like contrast and sunlight readability.

  • by cpct0 ( 558171 ) <slashdot@micheldon[ ].com ['ais' in gap]> on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @08:45AM (#47972645) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • ... the devices don't do much.

    When the technology goes airborne, and starts performing miracles of a semi-religious nature, it's all about what it can DO.

  • I couldn't help but notice the most adamant spec warriors in my group carefully avoided the topic of Apple's A7 processor when it was released. Whatever one things of Apple's design and pricing schemes the A7 was notable achievement that advanced specs in a direction unexpected by its competitors and which really hasn't been equaled to date. Yet for some reason it wasn't discussed.

    Leads me to believe that there is something else involved in the chest pounding contest besides straightforward performance me

  • I recently switched from Verizon to Cricket to save some money and went from a Galaxy S4 to a Galaxy Express. The S4 was snappy, no lag opening apps, unlocked right away and so on. The Express would often lag switching apps or even unlocking the screen. When I had it synced via bluetooth with my car stereo and I would skip a song, it would take 3 or 4 seconds to actually skip, where the S4 was instantaneous. I know it seems petty, but when you're used to speed, it's hard to go back. I ended up biting t
  • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @09:07AM (#47972793)

    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.

  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @09:08AM (#47972819) Homepage

    Like desktops, the vast majority of people will never truly tax their CPU, and haven't for a long time.

    Memory almost always becomes a bottleneck, and I'm of the opinion there's seldom such thing as too much of that, and almost never enough.

    So, my older Android phone, or my Nexus 7 tablet ... a newer generation has more CPU power, and more memory, and would probably be an improvement. Between two of the latest and greatest phones ... probably not so much.

    But, in terms of device longevity, in a few years when the OS has been updated numerous times, and your old device is old and busted, you will see it fall behind.

    Which is kind of annoying, because my Motorola Krazr was an awesome phone which I had for almost 10 years. And I can't say I'm overly keen to get on the upgrade treadmill because new OS versions are out or the vendor has added some bauble to the phone.

  • by Runefox ( 905204 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @09:09AM (#47972825) Homepage

    Android handsets are in a numbers race as far as specs go, going so far as to push beyond what anyone would appreciably notice. Case in point: The LG G3 with its 1440p, making for 534 PPI. What, exactly, is the point of this ridiculous PPI? You certainly aren't going to notice a difference between a 1080p screen and that one at these screen sizes unless you're used to using your phone under a magnifying glass or an inch away from your face. And yet it's a big feature, proudly displayed as the first bullet point on the website. It's a numbers game.

    Then there's the dual core vs quad core (and beyond) and maximum clock speed bit, which is absurd when you consider that different implementations (Qualcomm vs Apple for instance) even within the same architecture will have different levels of efficiency. In the PC world, for instance, Intel's processors absolutely dominate AMD's per-core and per-clock, and both are x86-64. For some perspective on that, Anandtech wrote [anandtech.com] that a single Haswell core has double the floating point performance of two AMD modules - four "cores". For Android's part, the trend seems to be, similarly to AMD, pushing for higher and higher clocks (Snapdragon 80x), and not efficiency. This can be seen in the preliminary benchmark results [anandtech.com] that show Apple's supposedly underpowered CPU topping the charts.

    And then, coming back to the story's example of the Nexus 5 vs the iPhone 6, comparing Android to iOS as far as RAM requirements go couldn't possibly be more misguided. iOS is far more restrictive as to what an app can do in the background than Android is, and much more aggressive with reclaiming memory for the app in the foreground. Android keeps apps running for as long as possible (until memory is needed, basically), and apps can do essentially whatever they want to do in the background. This also factors in to battery life, where power consumption on Android is likely to be much higher and therefore much larger batteries are being used there for what is basically similar battery life.

    It's for those reasons that it's tough to actually compare the two ecosystems, and it's tough to say whether the specs really make that much of a difference to the overall experience. I think the ultimate answer is that regardless of performance numbers on paper, we've hit the wall for what we're expecting our devices to do. For my part, I say that, for now at least, specs are irrelevant. As long as the device is able to handle the tasks thrown at it without choking and has the features I'm looking for, it's a device worth considering. I think the Nexus series in particular has always embodied that point of view.

  • 1080p Screen
    Expandable Memory Card Slot
    Removable Battery
    (preferably front facing stereo speakers)

    ^ Please show me the phone with those four simple specs???

    And since Google screwed up Android by not allowing apps to save to the external memory, a 128gb internal memory.

  • #1 Does the volume go high enough? (actually, I often want several steps between 4 and 5)
    #2 Does it fit in my pocket? (a big complaint of my wife -- most modern phones are too big for anything but a purse)
    #3 Can I enjoy watching a movie on a screen that size (I want a 70" smartphone)
    #4 Can I watch movies for the whole flight without plugging it in?
    #5 How fast does my app appear (which has very little to do with specs, more to do with software)
    #6 Can the GPS synch before I miss my exit?

    That's enough specs fo

  • Some geeks look at measurements, condensed to numbers, and call it "specs". Geeks like numbers.

    Many things that matter don't work that way. An awful example is cameras and megapixels - megapixels are a simple spec that is easy to compare and absolutely meaningless. The iPhone 6+ has a lot of improvements that make the camera work an awful lot better and let you make a lot better pictures (if it all works as advertised, which I didn't have a chance to test), and that all cannot be measured in specs.

    The
  • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @09:39AM (#47973057) Homepage

    I think sometimes people fail to recognize that the specs never really mattered. Not for any of it.

    Does it matter what resolution the screen is? No. It matters whether the screen appears to be sharp. Does it matter how much RAM you have, or how fast the clock speed is on your processor? No, it matters whether applications are responsive. What really matters to people is the qualitative experience of using the object.

    Specs and benchmarks are ways that you might try to quantify that experience. For the sharpness of the display, you can give the screen resolution and that can serve as an indication of the sharpness. For the speed of the device, you could measure how long it takes to complete a specific task, and that benchmark serves as an indicator of the speed. Those indicators may be more or less helpful. Some of these indicators (clock speed of the processor, megapixels of the camera) are often not that helpful anymore. But either way, they're just pieces of information that are helpful for shopping, for turning the qualitative aspects into quantities that make it easier to perform a direct comparison between products, and that's the only reason they're meaningful.

    But a lot of the time, people lose sight of that. Especially when they have an agenda, and want to say, "my gadget is fancier than your gadget because it has more sneezelflopits." It doesn't matter what a sneezelflopit is, or whether it serves any purpose.

  • Given how bloated web sites are, and the move away from mobile to full desktop web sites, yes, our phones need all the horsepower they can get.
  • Specs != performance.

    From what I see around me, perfomance is not an issue for any less than 3yo phone. Specifications are still key though: screen size, battery life, camera, sound quality on speakers and headset. One issue is that specs are sometimes off the mark: good screen doesn't mean more pixels, it means legible in bright light, at an angle, with good colors... Good camera doesn't man moar pixels, it means good pictures inside with no blur, etc etc.

  • ...as they used to be. I just want a smaller screen than 4.3 inches! If I have to live with lesser specs, too bad but FINE, I WILL.... JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SUCK TO CARRY AROUND. 3.5" - 4" for a phone screen is plenty. I already have a tablet.
  • The most important spec that needs improvement on pretty much all smart phones is that of battery length. All brands lie like thieves about how long they last. For being "portable" devices, anyone that really uses those 5" screens are going to be tethered to an outlet every few hours.

    For my money, I would rather see development in efficiency of the display, and processor, and advances in battery capacity over any new feature being developed. I would rather see apps that have to be clever to use what resour

  • Voice recognition is the most processor intensive thing most users commonly do, and today everybody does it remotely on big servers, primarily because you need a bunch of data in RAM to do it fast.

    We probably won't see this on phones until we get really low-power RAM (memristor-based, maybe).

  • So I had one post that was a response to the question "Do specs matter", but I just RTFA, and I want to respond to that too. The complaint seems to be that, in tests of application load time, a brand new high-end phone isn't significantly faster than a high-end phone that's 1 year old. The conclusion is that, therefore, people buying new phones are doing so for stupid reasons, which is extremely foolish because they cost $900.

    And yes, I'm sure some people buying them are doing so for dumb reasons. But t

Quantity is no substitute for quality, but its the only one we've got.

Working...