Your average consumer does not care about Geekbench, Futuremark, etc. Heck they don't even know what they are. Glad they have been removed from the apps database but it won't matter in the long run.
I wish you were right but even if the average consumer might not be aware of these benchmarks the carrier store reps make sure and let them know the "Note 3 is the fastest phone". I will give you an example, I happened to stop by a local Verizon store the other day because I was with a friend that needed to take care of something with his account. While I was waiting on him I looked at the Note 3 and a rep started trying to get me to buy one. I pretended like I didn't know much about smartphones just to see what he would say and I mentioned I was debating between the Note 3 and iPhone 5s and he gave me a long speech about how much faster the Note 3 was in benchmarks and talked about the 3GB of memory vs. 1GB and also the faster CPU. I doubt this was an anomaly and lots of people are told about these benchmark lies by sales reps all over the country so it does matter.
From false, misleading and deceptive advertising actually, I believe they call them consumer protection laws, most countries have them.
I'm not sure these benchmarks would qualify.
My reasoning…
1) There is no law that disallows a vendors from optimizing their code, in fact we want them to, but where do you draw the line is much more fuzzy. For instance, Google's Chrome browser is optimized for their V8 test suite, but that's perfectly reasonable since they write their code in such a way that one expect Google to optimize their webcode to run best on their native browser and therefore create a test suite to verify this is the case.
2) These system benchmarks are typically run by owners of the device or those reviewing the device. We've seen vendors advertise them in the past but I don't recall any of that happening since certain vendors started "cheating" on them. If they did then that could be a conflict of interest, but simply optimizing for 3rd-party benchmarks that they don't control and have them get tested independently by others seem so far removed that I can't imagine there are any consumer protection laws that would begin to cover that.
Protect it's citizens!? From what? the evils of a benchmark? Come on man.
YEP. Anyone should be able to say anything to sell their product and never have to face any consequences for it. Ever. At any time. For any reason.
I have some pills here that will make you immortal. Ten bucks a pop. I know, I’m being pretty generous here. I’m actually losing money. But hey, take one a day for the rest of your life and you’ll never, ever die.
YEP. Anyone should be able to say anything to sell their product and never have to face any consequences for it. Ever. At any time. For any reason.
I have some pills here that will make you immortal. Ten bucks a pop. I know, I’m being pretty generous here. I’m actually losing money. But hey, take one a day for the rest of your life and you’ll never, ever die.
Shut up.
It's amazing you get this riled up over something so trivial, can't imagine where you go discussing real matters.
The issue is in the grand scheme of things the government has much higher priorities to deal with. A cell phone cheating on a tech benchmark that enthusiasts use is way down on their list....where it should be.
It's amazing you get this riled up over something so trivial
One of thesole, actual responsibilities of government is trivial? Okay. Sure.
The issue is in the grand scheme of things the government has much higher priorities to deal with.
Uh huh. Yep. No one can ever be upset about more than one thing at once. Oh, and since it’s not the most important thing conceivable, it’s perfectly fine and totally not illegal at all.
One of thesole, actual responsibilities of government is trivial? Okay. Sure.
Uh huh. Yep. No one can ever be upset about more than one thing at once. Oh, and since it’s not the most important thing conceivable, it’s perfectly fine and totally not illegal at all.
People like you vote, and that bothers me.
It's not illegal, there's no law against cheating on benchmark tests. People cheat in many ways, performers take beta blockers so they won't be nervous during an audition or performance, students take Adderall so they can study for longer hours than possible. Cheating is done by people of all races, creeds, colors, religions, and social economic status.
It's not illegal, there's no law against cheating on benchmark tests. People cheat in many ways, performers take beta blockers so they won't be nervous during an audition or performance, students take Adderall so they can study for longer hours than possible. Cheating is done by people of all races, creeds, colors, religions, and social economic status.
Neither of those examples are even close to cheating.
A-Rod is a cheater, since there are precise, well-written rules against doing what he did. I'm not aware of any rules concerning taking beta blockers or Adderall (though the Adderall, if without a prescription, is a different problem -- of course, getting a scrip for Adderall is practically a non-event these days). Those aren't cheating because there are no sets of rules concerning those activities.
Neither of those examples are even close to cheating.
A-Rod is a cheater, since there are precise, well-written rules against doing what he did. I'm not aware of any rules concerning taking beta blockers or Adderall (though the Adderall, if without a prescription, is a different problem -- of course, getting a scrip for Adderall is practically a non-event these days). Those aren't cheating because there are no sets of rules concerning those activities.
Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
Neither of those examples are even close to cheating.
A-Rod is a cheater, since there are precise, well-written rules against doing what he did. I'm not aware of any rules concerning taking beta blockers or Adderall (though the Adderall, if without a prescription, is a different problem -- of course, getting a scrip for Adderall is practically a non-event these days). Those aren't cheating because there are no sets of rules concerning those activities.
Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
You have to be a little cautious with that line of reasoning. If cheating extends beyond breaking the rules, then where does it end? Taking those (legal) drugs enhances performance, but so does eating better, or training harder. Is that also cheating?
You have to be a little cautious with that line of reasoning. If cheating extends beyond breaking the rules, then where does it end? Taking those (legal) drugs enhances performance, but so does eating better, or training harder. Is that also cheating?
It ends when drugs are needed to enhance performance. Eating better, and training harder isn't a instant fix, but in many cases PEDs are.
It's not illegal, there's no law against cheating on benchmark tests.
It’s illegal to advertise falsely. Misrepresentation of a product in a benchmark is a false representation (advertisement) of the product to said benchmark, and, by extension, the user. QED, it is illegal to fake benchmarks.
It ends when drugs are needed to enhance performance. Eating better, and training harder isn't a instant fix, but in many cases PEDs are.
He mentioned legal drugs so we're not talking about something obtained through dubious means even if not currently a controlled substance.
I think it's a fair point. We're not simply talking about an episode of "21 Jump Street" where rich high school kids are taking uppers to study for finals week. If one could take a pill to help concentrate and focus better than one would normally then does that make it wrong if it helps you to be a better you? What if the persons in question suffer from severe ADHD and therefore wouldn't be able to live a normal life without the medication? What about other physical and mental illnesses that can create a domino effect that affects one's ability to learn if not kept in check?
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">It's not illegal, there's no law against cheating on benchmark tests.</span>
It’s illegal to advertise falsely. Misrepresentation of a product in a benchmark is a false representation (advertisement) of the product to said benchmark, and, by extension, the user. QED, it is illegal to fake benchmarks.
I'm not sure about that. It's clearly unethical, but if the device actually runs the benchmark at that speed, and the advertising claim is just related to the benchmark performance, then no false claim is made - technically at least. Misrepresentation by implication might be a tough sell in a court of law.
It’s illegal to advertise falsely. Misrepresentation of a product in a benchmark is a false representation (advertisement) of the product to said benchmark, and, by extension, the user. QED, it is illegal to fake benchmarks.
I haven't seen any evidence that any of these companies marketed the doped results for the devices in question.
There is no evidence of falsifying any benchmark. The results are quite real and are the actual results of the HW being tested, it's just not the results that all apps will get with that HW because it removed limitations put in place on the HW for normal operation. This is very significant, especially if you want to make this a legal matter.
There is no evidence of falsifying any benchmark. The results are quite real and are the actual results of the HW being tested, it's just not the results that all apps will get with that HW because it removed limitations put in place on the HW for normal operation. This is very significant, especially if you want to make this a legal matter.
Hmm. Hypothetical: Car company gives model to EPA for testing with software that manages its engine more efficiently, giving lower emissions and higher MPG. Model is physically unchanged when sold to consumers, software has engine run less efficiently. Legal?
Hmm. Hypothetical: Car company gives model to EPA for testing with software that manages its engine more efficiently, giving lower emissions and higher MPG. Model is physically unchanged when sold to consumers, software has engine run less efficiently. Legal?
If these smartphone vendors had to give devices to a government agency for testing and they used different SW between the testing facility and consumers it would be an issue, but there is no such agency and the code received by the average consumer and reviewer is the exact same.
There is no evidence of falsifying any benchmark. The results are quite real and are the actual results of the HW being tested, it's just not the results that all apps will get with that HW because it removed limitations put in place on the HW for normal operation. This is very significant, especially if you want to make this a legal matter.
Hmm. Hypothetical: Car company gives model to EPA for testing with software that manages its engine more efficiently, giving lower emissions and higher MPG. Model is physically unchanged when sold to consumers, software has engine run less efficiently. Legal?
No, but two differences: (1) the EPA is a regulatory agency and actually approves the vehicle, so it must be the production model, and (2) the phones in question are production models, exactly as sold, and the user can indeed realize the benchmark performance when running the benchmark software.
If these smartphone vendors had to give devices to a government agency for testing and they used different SW between the testing facility and consumers it would be an issue…
But different firmware (work with me here; just call it tweaking, I guess) between apps on a device isn’t? If it isn’t (legally), it isn’t; I just think it certainly should be. It’s like how your ISP prioritizes traffic to speed testing websites and lies to you about how fast your connection is.
Originally Posted by muppetry
…the user can indeed realize the benchmark performance… …when running the benchmark software.
Geez, I don’t like that. That’s one big tautological loophole.
Comments
Your average consumer does not care about Geekbench, Futuremark, etc. Heck they don't even know what they are. Glad they have been removed from the apps database but it won't matter in the long run.
I wish you were right but even if the average consumer might not be aware of these benchmarks the carrier store reps make sure and let them know the "Note 3 is the fastest phone". I will give you an example, I happened to stop by a local Verizon store the other day because I was with a friend that needed to take care of something with his account. While I was waiting on him I looked at the Note 3 and a rep started trying to get me to buy one. I pretended like I didn't know much about smartphones just to see what he would say and I mentioned I was debating between the Note 3 and iPhone 5s and he gave me a long speech about how much faster the Note 3 was in benchmarks and talked about the 3GB of memory vs. 1GB and also the faster CPU. I doubt this was an anomaly and lots of people are told about these benchmark lies by sales reps all over the country so it does matter.
I hope you're being sarcastic.
and I see you're not. Protect it's citizens!? From what? the evils of a benchmark? Come on man.
From false, misleading and deceptive advertising actually, I believe they call them consumer protection laws, most countries have them.
Completely ignored by Google:
In Dutch, but many more EU countries are taking action as well:
http://www.cbpweb.nl/Pages/pb_20131128-google-privacybeleid.aspx
Totally OT.
I'm not sure these benchmarks would qualify.
My reasoning…
1) There is no law that disallows a vendors from optimizing their code, in fact we want them to, but where do you draw the line is much more fuzzy. For instance, Google's Chrome browser is optimized for their V8 test suite, but that's perfectly reasonable since they write their code in such a way that one expect Google to optimize their webcode to run best on their native browser and therefore create a test suite to verify this is the case.
2) These system benchmarks are typically run by owners of the device or those reviewing the device. We've seen vendors advertise them in the past but I don't recall any of that happening since certain vendors started "cheating" on them. If they did then that could be a conflict of interest, but simply optimizing for 3rd-party benchmarks that they don't control and have them get tested independently by others seem so far removed that I can't imagine there are any consumer protection laws that would begin to cover that.
Protect it's citizens!? From what? the evils of a benchmark? Come on man.
YEP. Anyone should be able to say anything to sell their product and never have to face any consequences for it. Ever. At any time. For any reason.
I have some pills here that will make you immortal. Ten bucks a pop. I know, I’m being pretty generous here. I’m actually losing money. But hey, take one a day for the rest of your life and you’ll never, ever die.
Shut up.
YEP. Anyone should be able to say anything to sell their product and never have to face any consequences for it. Ever. At any time. For any reason.
I have some pills here that will make you immortal. Ten bucks a pop. I know, I’m being pretty generous here. I’m actually losing money. But hey, take one a day for the rest of your life and you’ll never, ever die.
Shut up.
It's amazing you get this riled up over something so trivial, can't imagine where you go discussing real matters.
The issue is in the grand scheme of things the government has much higher priorities to deal with. A cell phone cheating on a tech benchmark that enthusiasts use is way down on their list....where it should be.
One of the sole, actual responsibilities of government is trivial? Okay. Sure.
Uh huh. Yep. No one can ever be upset about more than one thing at once. Oh, and since it’s not the most important thing conceivable, it’s perfectly fine and totally not illegal at all.
People like you vote, and that bothers me.
It's not illegal, there's no law against cheating on benchmark tests. People cheat in many ways, performers take beta blockers so they won't be nervous during an audition or performance, students take Adderall so they can study for longer hours than possible. Cheating is done by people of all races, creeds, colors, religions, and social economic status.
It's not illegal, there's no law against cheating on benchmark tests. People cheat in many ways, performers take beta blockers so they won't be nervous during an audition or performance, students take Adderall so they can study for longer hours than possible. Cheating is done by people of all races, creeds, colors, religions, and social economic status.
Neither of those examples are even close to cheating.
A-Rod is a cheater, since there are precise, well-written rules against doing what he did. I'm not aware of any rules concerning taking beta blockers or Adderall (though the Adderall, if without a prescription, is a different problem -- of course, getting a scrip for Adderall is practically a non-event these days). Those aren't cheating because there are no sets of rules concerning those activities.
Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
Neither of those examples are even close to cheating.
A-Rod is a cheater, since there are precise, well-written rules against doing what he did. I'm not aware of any rules concerning taking beta blockers or Adderall (though the Adderall, if without a prescription, is a different problem -- of course, getting a scrip for Adderall is practically a non-event these days). Those aren't cheating because there are no sets of rules concerning those activities.
Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
You have to be a little cautious with that line of reasoning. If cheating extends beyond breaking the rules, then where does it end? Taking those (legal) drugs enhances performance, but so does eating better, or training harder. Is that also cheating?
It ends when drugs are needed to enhance performance. Eating better, and training harder isn't a instant fix, but in many cases PEDs are.
It’s illegal to advertise falsely. Misrepresentation of a product in a benchmark is a false representation (advertisement) of the product to said benchmark, and, by extension, the user. QED, it is illegal to fake benchmarks.
He mentioned legal drugs so we're not talking about something obtained through dubious means even if not currently a controlled substance.
I think it's a fair point. We're not simply talking about an episode of "21 Jump Street" where rich high school kids are taking uppers to study for finals week. If one could take a pill to help concentrate and focus better than one would normally then does that make it wrong if it helps you to be a better you? What if the persons in question suffer from severe ADHD and therefore wouldn't be able to live a normal life without the medication? What about other physical and mental illnesses that can create a domino effect that affects one's ability to learn if not kept in check?
I'm not sure about that. It's clearly unethical, but if the device actually runs the benchmark at that speed, and the advertising claim is just related to the benchmark performance, then no false claim is made - technically at least. Misrepresentation by implication might be a tough sell in a court of law.
I haven't seen any evidence that any of these companies marketed the doped results for the devices in question.
There is no evidence of falsifying any benchmark. The results are quite real and are the actual results of the HW being tested, it's just not the results that all apps will get with that HW because it removed limitations put in place on the HW for normal operation. This is very significant, especially if you want to make this a legal matter.
Hmm. Hypothetical: Car company gives model to EPA for testing with software that manages its engine more efficiently, giving lower emissions and higher MPG. Model is physically unchanged when sold to consumers, software has engine run less efficiently. Legal?
If these smartphone vendors had to give devices to a government agency for testing and they used different SW between the testing facility and consumers it would be an issue, but there is no such agency and the code received by the average consumer and reviewer is the exact same.
No, but two differences: (1) the EPA is a regulatory agency and actually approves the vehicle, so it must be the production model, and (2) the phones in question are production models, exactly as sold, and the user can indeed realize the benchmark performance when running the benchmark software.
But different firmware (work with me here; just call it tweaking, I guess) between apps on a device isn’t? If it isn’t (legally), it isn’t; I just think it certainly should be. It’s like how your ISP prioritizes traffic to speed testing websites and lies to you about how fast your connection is.
Geez, I don’t like that. That’s one big tautological loophole.