Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Death of the Specification

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: The Death of the Specification

#11

Post by cbr »

eykanal wrote: post #2

This is a good article, but the spec has been dead since the release of the first iPhone. (Maybe earlier, but that was when everyone talked about it.) Apple showed that users don't really care about spec unless everything else looks the same. When all consumers have are rows and rows of identical-looking computers, they pick the one with the highest numbers. When they have a single piece of hardware, with no specs at…

The first iphone? The first ipod was famously panned [1] on specs and then was a huge success.

[1] http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip...

Re: The Death of the Specification

#12

Post by pkulak »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

TL;DR version - the relative popularity of technology gizmos doesn't correllate well with their specifications. Somebody rolled out from under a rock that they ahd been in since 2000 and woke up apparently. The history was that with x86 flavored personal computers, there was a 15 year period between 1985 and 2000 where you could take two machines, compare the specs of the ram/processor/video and come up with a 'good,…

Exactly. You can't put out an article like this while spewing our countless reviews talking about how one camera is so many megapixels better than this other camera.

Re: The Death of the Specification

#13

Post by kstenerud »

News flash: Consumer Reports is not a cheerleader for the top selling products. They are an organization concerned over what you get in actual fact for your money.

Consumer Reports is read by people who want to know all of the quality issues and hard facts about a product before making a purchasing decision. Such consumers always have, and always will be, a small market segment.

This "credibility rant" reads like a sycophant lamenting those who don't heap lavish praise upon the popular kids.

Re: The Death of the Specification

#14

Post by Lukeas14 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

TL;DR version - the relative popularity of technology gizmos doesn't correllate well with their specifications. Somebody rolled out from under a rock that they ahd been in since 2000 and woke up apparently. The history was that with x86 flavored personal computers, there was a 15 year period between 1985 and 2000 where you could take two machines, compare the specs of the ram/processor/video and come up with a 'good,…

I think it comes down to hardware vs. software. In the "PC" era your hardware was the sole determiner of what you could do with your machine. However, in the "Post PC" era the software has become just as important. Your tablet's API and App store policies now determine what you can and can't do. When you consider that software is much hard to provide comparable specs for than hardware, the falling importance of specs makes sense.

Re: The Death of the Specification

#15

Post by j_baker »

kstenerud wrote: post #13

News flash: Consumer Reports is not a cheerleader for the top selling products. They are an organization concerned over what you get in actual fact for your money. Consumer Reports is read by people who want to know all of the quality issues and hard facts about a product before making a purchasing decision. Such consumers always have, and always will be, a small market segment. This "credibility rant" reads like a s…

I don't think the author ever said that Consumer Reports should be a cheerleader for top-selling products. Rather, the author says that Consumer Reports doesn't seem to have much influence over what sells. It sounds to me like you agree with the author.

Re: The Death of the Specification

#18

Post by tatsuke95 »

Just another way for MG to place Apple on a pedestal.

Look, it does make sense that when my mother goes to buy a computer, she can be confident in knowing what she's getting, without having to understand gigabytes, megahertz and cores. I get that.

But the first thing I did after clicking on the link to buy my Macbook Air? Spec'd it out the way I wanted. It's not transparent, and people like "specs". i7, 256 GB HD. It's the same reason I know the fuel mileage, tire size and horsepower of my car.

How can anyone take this guy seriously when he says things like:

"My MacBook Air doesn’t have the specs of a brand new HP PC laptop — but it still feels faster."

Re: The Death of the Specification

#19

Post by kstenerud »

j_baker wrote: post #15
kstenerud wrote: post #13

News flash: Consumer Reports is not a cheerleader for the top selling products. They are an organization concerned over what you get in actual fact for your money. Consumer Reports is read by people who want to know all of the quality issues and hard facts about a product before making a purchasing decision. Such consumers always have, and always will be, a small market segment. This "credibility rant" reads like a s…

I don't think the author ever said that Consumer Reports should be a cheerleader for top-selling products. Rather, the author says that Consumer Reports doesn't seem to have much influence over what sells. It sounds to me like you agree with the author.

CR has plenty of influence over what sells to its target market. If this weren't so, it would be impossible for them to turn a profit. The author is claiming that CR is irrelevant and out of touch, and "demonstrates" his point using a market that CR doesn't even cater to.

You might as well argue that Techcrunch is irrelevant because it doesn't cover the latest in housing and furniture.

Re: The Death of the Specification

#20

Post by nl »

This is a less well thought version of Marc Andreessen's Software eats the World essay[1]. For devices like phones and tablets the platform (aka software+services) matters a lot more than the hardware.

Sure, there are a few exceptions: gaming requires specific hardware, the connected fitness market likes Ant+, Bluetooth 3.0 or dongles, etc. But the general case is that the software matters, not the hardware.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651...

Post reply on HN