The Last of the Old-School Tech Reviewers | Hacker News Reader

The Last of the Old-School Tech Reviewers

wired.com

87 pointsLaSombra20 comments

I think there's a fundamental difference in how technology is sold nowadays versus how it was sold a decade ago.

Technology used to be sold as a solution to a problem. Want to record TV? Buy a VCR. Tech specs are important because you want to find the best solution to the problem.

Nowadays, for better or for worse, technology is sold as an "experience." A modern phone doesn't really do much a phone from 5 years ago can't do, so phones are sold based on how they look and the smoothness of operation. Will anyone really notice 2gb of RAM vs 3gb of RAM? Because of this, modern reviewers will emphasize first impressions and general "feeling" of the device.

That is more of a difference between general device and specific one-use device.

"A modern phone doesn't really do much a phone from 5 years ago can't do"

It can run a game old one could not run. It shows more text on the screen, so reading is easier and faster. It does make difference between "I will rather open a laptop" and "reading on the phone is just fine".

"Will anyone really notice 2gb of RAM vs 3gb of RAM?"

Yes. The result speed improvements and the smoothness of operation are direct result of that.

I don't exactly agree. While the internal hardware does tend to receive less emphasis now, the physical build quality has increasingly been given a scientific treatment, and for good reason: it's the part that matters the most! A phone with an inferior camera, screen, and battery life is a worse phone for most people. So there are lots of reviews that subject these elements to tests with measurable results. That really wasn't the case years and years ago: the fact that the features of a device actually worked was often novelty enough.

I don't think the "physical build quality" is treated objectively at all. Instead it is all subjective. Take the material of the phone - "glass/aluminium is expensive to build this precisely, therefore it is a luxury experience". But on any actual objective measurements of physical properties - scratch resistance, weight, toughness - these materials are pretty poor compared to some alternatives.

However, the alternatives like eg. polycarbonate plastic are perceived as "cheap" even though they may be better from a specifications point of view.

Gorilla Glass is one of those rare product features that is so much better than the alternatives it's like magic. It's not strictly indestructible if you drop it, but you can just chuck it in a bag with your keys and not worry about it. Unlike polycarbonate.

Plastic-bodied laptops flex a bit more than metal ones. If you've got a large one and you regularly pick it up from one side the flexing can gradually crack the PCB. I agree that aluminium scratches up rather badly.

(Handily the Dow Corning website will list products using it, so you can avoid worrying about whether the vendor is using an imitation toughened glass)

> Will anyone really notice 2gb of RAM vs 3gb of RAM?

The "man on the street" possibly not, and the is the larger part of the audience in most cases so both advertising and reviews concentrate in that direction.

A slightly more demanding user who multitasks (or at least task switches a lot) with their phone will definitely notice though because switching between apps is where the lower active memory will have most effect on the responsiveness particularly with larger apps (MS Excel especially with a reasonably chunky workbook loaded, many games, ...).

The "man on the street" type user will play those games and may use the office apps too, but is less likely to care as much about task switching time as they won't do it as often. Most of their use is making calls, sending texts, and using facebook/messenger and its ilk.

If you want more technical review, then there are places out there that still produce them, but it isn't what most people want (they don't care about the technical details, they are looking for a judgement on the overall feel) so there is less of it out there.

Back on RAM: the difference between 4Gb and 3Gb is much smaller - a friend has the 3Gb version of the same phone and there is a difference that is noticeable in artificial tests side-by-side but not more generally (I went for the larger device not for the RAM, but for the greater internal storage (64Gb over 32Gb)).

The main difference I see between 80s tech and today, besides the obvious increase in specifications, is the emphasis on an extremely simplified user experience. Before Microsoft and later Apple started emphasising ease of use in the mid-nineties, tech was niche and obtuse. Things were possible, but not easy to use. There were a lot of good ideas coming out but none of them were ever refined enough that Grandma and Grandpa can just pick it up and use it. 80s tech was often a solution in search of a problem, with the generous assumption that every consumer was patient enough to sit down and learn its intricacies.

An example of this I've seen was the pay-TV service Tele1st. In 1984, this was billed as a way to rent first-run movies to consumers without having to go to the video store, by recording them onto tape overnight from an encrypted broadcast. Sounds simple, right? Only, the encryption was a PITA to set up: you needed to wire this big-ass box into your phone line and VCR, and prior to every broadcast of Tele1st, you would have to adjust a knob on the bottom of the unit so that the contrast matched a test pattern shown before the first movie. If you didn't do this, the encryption would fail. See for yourself: https://youtu.be/jR8YQu1HT8Y

Another example was the generous assumption that we would all be BASIC programmers. BASIC was pushed as the next essential household skill, like operating the TV or running the washer. V-tech toys came with reading, spelling, math, and BASIC. But in the end, all Grandma and Grandpa want is something that works when you press the button. They don't have the time or patience to figure out BASIC for a recipe keeper, that's what the modern-day App Store is for.

One of the strongest lessons Steve Jobs taught the tech world, is that the ease-of-use makes the difference between the IBM Simon and the culture-changing impact of the iPhone.

This is also the way most technology goes. You used to be able to fix any part of a car. Now engines are sealed and hard to repair and cars have automatic transmissions. Consumer electronics takes this path as well. This is why voice assistants have been so popular. They provide an arguably worse experience than using a computer to do similar tasks, but the ease of use of their interface is attractive.

I'm not as old school as Braithwaite but I used to do the same types of reviews for more modern equipment. I remember being half blind after measuring the lightning levels for 8 hours on plasma TV's, losing my mind after finishing a 40 laptop test and sleeping beneath my desk in the magazine's office.

We used to do detailed tests with dozens of measurable points, making objective features 90% of the final grade with huge spreadsheets counting every specific feature of a laptop, TV, phone, MP3 player, later tablet or netbook.

Back then I knew every review in my magazine was made with precision and care, I knew they could be trusted and reading two thick pages about a device made sense.

Today it rarely does.

This seems kind of weird to say, but I wonder how much of the demise of the "old school tech reviewers" is the massive quality improvement in many/most categories coupled with a massive decrease in price as well.

A "good" 1991 TV was a 27" that cost about $1400 (in 2017 dollars)

Today $1,400 will get you a 65" 4k Curved TV that weighs less, consumes less energy and (to someone from 1991) would have what appears to have a sci-fi level of image quality. The fact that it also has apparently nearly everything on demand for the price of a single movie rental is likely also astonishing.

I just feel like it's hard to walk into a BestBuy and get what you could call a "bad" TV for $500.

I'd say Anandtech is the closest we come to this level of detail today, and we just have to hope they'll keep going long term.

Anandtech was lost years ago. It's been a ghost of itself since Anand and Brian went to work for Apple. Ian Cutress still writes good desktop CPU/architecture reviews, but editorial quality and consistency have gone way down, and most of the content that comes out of there just isn't up to par with the publication's formerly high standards.

I really miss their Mac reviews, which they don't do any longer. Quality photography, heat and screen measurements as well as benchmarks, and some real, technical insights. Even if they were slightly biased towards the Mac.

Compare the 2013 Retina article -

https://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-...

All the attention they gave the 2016 was basically a presser with stock photos from Apple -

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10799/apple-announces-4th-gen...

HardOCP still does good in depth, hasn't changed in 15 years.

Notebookcheck are a German outlet that do high quality reviews of laptops.

Things like using a thermal camera to show hot spots, measuring display response rates, display calibrations, noise levels plus the standard performance tests.

Tft Central is another one for monitor reviews though they only review the most popular since I think they're understaffed.

Yeah, Notebookcheck were the first equivalent that came to mind.

prad.de is another good one for monitor reviews.

yup, notebookcheck is the only place I read for good reviews.

I remember when CNET was trustworthy, and not a giant, malware ridden advertisement...

CNET was always the 'PC World' magazine level of reviews for the masses. Lacking in detail/substance

Reply on news.ycombinator.com