Well you tell me, who brags about benchmark scores except geeks? I've overheard people bragging about screen size, about this feature and that feature but never once have I heard someone brag about benchmark scores.
So you're once again left with the question - why did all those companies cheat if no one cares about the result? Obviously, Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung and others think it's important enough to risk getting caught cheating. So why should we accept your "it doesn't matter" over their "it matters enough that we're going to cheat"?
buyers base their decision merely on benchmarks. but you are wrong to then dismiss hype as inconsequential in the marketplace.
This is seemingly contradictory. If people aren't buying devices because of their benchmark scores than it is inconsequential in the marketplace. Nowadays when people hear faster they think in terms of internet speeds. They really don't care if a phone can open a app a half second faster than another one.
This is seemingly contradictory. If people aren't buying devices because of their benchmark scores than it is inconsequential in the marketplace. Nowadays when people hear faster they think in terms of internet speeds. They really don't care if a phone can open a app a half second faster than another one.
um .... did you read the rest of my comment? all the stuff you don't quote and don't address?
Published Geekbench results are regularly done on hacked Android versions that have been modified specifically to run benchmarks - at the expense of actually doing anything useful.
Just another example of why Android benchmarks shouldn't be trusted.
I think you are muddling two separate issues here. The outrage here is over OEM ``optimizations" for benchmarks that are published in reviews of official products. The guilty OEMs deserve all the flak they can get because unassuming consumers who read reviews that depend on faulty benchmarks will be led to false impressions of their products. One should certainly view benchmarks published in reviews with suspicion because these OEMs have been caught trying to underhandedly subvert them.
On the other hand, the results published on Geekbench's website are not related to this affair. Geekbench's website is merely a public forum where users can upload their personal Geekbench results. The very purpose of that site is to let you show off your overclocked gaming rig or smartphone. Those user-uploaded results have nothing to do with the credibility of reviews of official OEM products because the reviewers run their own benchmarks on devices straight from the OEMs. No reasonable person would assign any weight to the numbers on the Geekbench website even if no OEM cheated.
So you're once again left with the question - why did all those companies cheat if no one cares about the result? Obviously, Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung and others think it's important enough to risk getting caught cheating. So why should we accept your "it doesn't matter" over their "it matters enough that we're going to cheat"
I really don't know the answer to that question. A positive review is helpful but truth be told the majority of the people reading reviews aren't in the market for a phone or will not let benchmark scores affect their decision. Funny that it's only the Asian companies that do it, maybe benchmark scores are the modern day 'Superman can beat up Batman' in Korea.
I really don't know the answer to that question. A positive review is helpful but truth be told the majority of the people reading reviews aren't in the market for a phone or will not let benchmark scores affect their decision. Funny that it's only the Asian companies that do it, maybe benchmark scores are the modern day 'Superman can beat up Batman' in Korea.
Let's see. You (an anonymous nobody on AI) say that benchmarks aren't important.
Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung, and others think that they're important enough to cheat on the benchmark testing.
Who is more likely to know about the customers' buying behavior?
Besides, even if you were right and it didn't matter - that simply makes those companies stupid as well as dishonest.
Let's see. You (an anonymous nobody on AI) say that benchmarks aren't important.
Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung, and others think that they're important enough to cheat on the benchmark testing.
Who is more likely to know about the customers' buying behavior?
Besides, even if you were right and it didn't matter - that simply makes those companies stupid as well as dishonest.
I never said that benchmarks weren't important, it's just not of importance to the average consumer at least in the US.
Now I could've told that all these companies were stupid back in late 2007 when a company that had never made a phone before had to show them the future of phones and now 6 years later they still can't get it right.
OK. Very slight modification to my statement - but the gist doesn't change:
Let's see. You (an anonymous nobody on AI) say that benchmarks aren't important enough to change buying decisions.
Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung, and others think that they're important enough to cheat on the benchmark testing.
Who is more likely to know about the customers' buying behavior?
Besides, even if you were right and it didn't matter - that simply makes those companies stupid as well as dishonest.
The gist doesn't change much and you and I are in agreement that these companies are indeed both stupid and dishonest especially since they're cheating on a test most know nothing of and the performance increase is only a few percentage points.
The gist doesn't change much and you and I are in agreement that these companies are indeed both stupid and dishonest especially since they're cheating on a test most know nothing of and the performance increase is only a few percentage points.
Yet you keep ignoring the point that Samsung, Asus, HTC, LG, and others thought it was going to improve their sales enough to matter. Who knows the market better - them or you?
And the difference is more than 'a few percentage points'.
Yet you keep ignoring the point that Samsung, Asus, HTC, LG, and others thought it was going to improve their sales enough to matter. Who knows the market better - them or you?
And the difference is more than 'a few percentage points'.
Aside from Samsung devices selling well because of their marketing blitz that didn't include benchmark scores the other companies don't have a clue about the market or their devices would sell. I for one would've concentrated on actually making my device faster than make it seem like it is, but then again appearances are as important as reality.
Yet you keep ignoring the point that Samsung, Asus, HTC, LG, and others thought it was going to improve their sales enough to matter. Who knows the market better - them or you?
And the difference is more than 'a few percentage points'.
Did you consider that they thought it would improve there sales… unless they got caught. Sometimes you take a calculated risk in business. Just look to Samsung's loss against Apple in their blatant stealing.
BTW, looking at HTC and LG (and Blackberry's) success in the market it's hard to think that any one here doesn't understand the better than they do.
Yes I gave it that thought and the answer I came up with is "not by much", maybe a few thousand but not the millions they would need to compete with Apple. Motorola's been losing money longer than any of them yet Moto didn't try to cheat the tests.
I agree it would be very minimal, but any chance of sales is sometimes enough. People and businesses make stupid decisions and take foolish risks but we all do that and it's sometimes only in retrospect we see that. There are certainly plenty of examples with Apple making what I would call dumb mistakes.
Launching MobileMe at the same time as the iOS 3(?) and the iPhone 3GS(?) without letting .Mac users use it first, without offering an invite feature, and/or without requiring a credit card for the free 30 day trial completely killed that long effort. It was otherwise a decent result once all the extreme access died down but the damage was done.
They aren't getting ad revenue from users of Google Android devices?
Apparently, the ad revenue from Android (which accounts for 80% of global market share) is still a pittance compared to the revenue from users on the IOS platform (despite making up just a minority share), if an earlier Appleinsider article is to be believed.
They aren't getting ad revenue from users of Google Android devices?
Apparently, the ad revenue from Android (which accounts for 80% of global market share) is still a pittance compared to the revenue from users on the IOS platform (despite making up just a minority share), if an earlier Appleinsider article is to be believed.
That's partly because Android doesn't have 80% marketshare, that was for a recent financial quarter. The amount of devices out there, it's below 2:1 Android:iOS and I suspect a lot of ad networks are regional e.g some might not operate in Asia.
The weird thing about Android fans is they buy and promote Android devices with the intention of supporting Google but if Google makes more money from iOS and buying Android devices actually gives Microsoft (Google's main competitor) more money from patent royalties, buying an Android device would end up being worse for Google than buying an iPhone and yet they try to put people off buying iPhones.
That's partly because Android doesn't have 80% marketshare, that was for a recent financial quarter. The amount of devices out there, it's below 2:1 Android:iOS and I suspect a lot of ad networks are regional e.g some might not operate in Asia.
The weird thing about Android fans is they buy and promote Android devices with the intention of supporting Google but if Google makes more money from iOS and buying Android devices actually gives Microsoft (Google's main competitor) more money from patent royalties, buying an Android device would end up being worse for Google than buying an iPhone and yet they try to put people off buying iPhones.
Interesting take Marvin. There's probably some Android fans that applies to.
But I'd guess that a whole lotta Android smartphone buyers don't even know the OS comes from Google. For that matter there's probably many iPhone buyers that have no idea what iOS is or that it's different from OS's on other smartphones or even what an OS is. I don't think a lot of consumers put that much thought or research into it. They see a smartphone, want one and buy for reasons other than what operating system it runs. Heck I've heard comments from a few folks that refer to any smartphone they see as an iPhone. You probably have too.
Did you consider that they thought it would improve there sales… unless they got caught. Sometimes you take a calculated risk in business.
But that's exactly the point. They obviously thought it would help sales - which refutes dasaman69's insistence that no one pays attention to benchmarks except geeks.
But that's exactly the point. They obviously thought it would help sales - which refutes dasaman69's insistence that no one pays attention to benchmarks except geeks.
If he left it at "no one pays attention to benchmarks" I would agree with you and have noted such an absolute comment clearly can't be true but he added "except geeks" which I think can easily be argued.
Surely we all don't define the term geek the same way but I can't discount that people reading reading raw benchmarks and buying because of that aren't actually geeks. I'm sure some might be enthusiasts but I'd still call them geeks.
I'd even say that those would buy based solely on those benchmarks are not very good geek as they are clearly ignoring the fundamental reason for all technology is to be used or aid one or more individuals, such as Apple tends to due when they balance performance and power usage in their mobile devices… which are also now the most powerful on the market.
I think we both agree the risk and reward are both pretty minimal that neither of us would have even considered it had we worked for these companies.
Comments
So you're once again left with the question - why did all those companies cheat if no one cares about the result? Obviously, Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung and others think it's important enough to risk getting caught cheating. So why should we accept your "it doesn't matter" over their "it matters enough that we're going to cheat"?
I agree. Just to make it clear what you're referring to (you didn't link to it):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7384/state-of-cheating-in-android-benchmarks
This is seemingly contradictory. If people aren't buying devices because of their benchmark scores than it is inconsequential in the marketplace. Nowadays when people hear faster they think in terms of internet speeds. They really don't care if a phone can open a app a half second faster than another one.
This is seemingly contradictory. If people aren't buying devices because of their benchmark scores than it is inconsequential in the marketplace. Nowadays when people hear faster they think in terms of internet speeds. They really don't care if a phone can open a app a half second faster than another one.
um .... did you read the rest of my comment? all the stuff you don't quote and don't address?
Published Geekbench results are regularly done on hacked Android versions that have been modified specifically to run benchmarks - at the expense of actually doing anything useful.
Just another example of why Android benchmarks shouldn't be trusted.
I think you are muddling two separate issues here. The outrage here is over OEM ``optimizations" for benchmarks that are published in reviews of official products. The guilty OEMs deserve all the flak they can get because unassuming consumers who read reviews that depend on faulty benchmarks will be led to false impressions of their products. One should certainly view benchmarks published in reviews with suspicion because these OEMs have been caught trying to underhandedly subvert them.
On the other hand, the results published on Geekbench's website are not related to this affair. Geekbench's website is merely a public forum where users can upload their personal Geekbench results. The very purpose of that site is to let you show off your overclocked gaming rig or smartphone. Those user-uploaded results have nothing to do with the credibility of reviews of official OEM products because the reviewers run their own benchmarks on devices straight from the OEMs. No reasonable person would assign any weight to the numbers on the Geekbench website even if no OEM cheated.
I really don't know the answer to that question. A positive review is helpful but truth be told the majority of the people reading reviews aren't in the market for a phone or will not let benchmark scores affect their decision. Funny that it's only the Asian companies that do it, maybe benchmark scores are the modern day 'Superman can beat up Batman' in Korea.
Yes I did and I addressed the only part I had a problem with, the rest of it is pretty much spot on.
Let's see. You (an anonymous nobody on AI) say that benchmarks aren't important.
Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung, and others think that they're important enough to cheat on the benchmark testing.
Who is more likely to know about the customers' buying behavior?
Besides, even if you were right and it didn't matter - that simply makes those companies stupid as well as dishonest.
I never said that benchmarks weren't important, it's just not of importance to the average consumer at least in the US.
Now I could've told that all these companies were stupid back in late 2007 when a company that had never made a phone before had to show them the future of phones and now 6 years later they still can't get it right.
OK. Very slight modification to my statement - but the gist doesn't change:
Let's see. You (an anonymous nobody on AI) say that benchmarks aren't important enough to change buying decisions.
Asus, HTC, LG, Samsung, and others think that they're important enough to cheat on the benchmark testing.
Who is more likely to know about the customers' buying behavior?
Besides, even if you were right and it didn't matter - that simply makes those companies stupid as well as dishonest.
The gist doesn't change much and you and I are in agreement that these companies are indeed both stupid and dishonest especially since they're cheating on a test most know nothing of and the performance increase is only a few percentage points.
Yet you keep ignoring the point that Samsung, Asus, HTC, LG, and others thought it was going to improve their sales enough to matter. Who knows the market better - them or you?
And the difference is more than 'a few percentage points'.
Aside from Samsung devices selling well because of their marketing blitz that didn't include benchmark scores the other companies don't have a clue about the market or their devices would sell. I for one would've concentrated on actually making my device faster than make it seem like it is, but then again appearances are as important as reality.
Did you consider that they thought it would improve there sales… unless they got caught. Sometimes you take a calculated risk in business. Just look to Samsung's loss against Apple in their blatant stealing.
BTW, looking at HTC and LG (and Blackberry's) success in the market it's hard to think that any one here doesn't understand the better than they do.
I agree it would be very minimal, but any chance of sales is sometimes enough. People and businesses make stupid decisions and take foolish risks but we all do that and it's sometimes only in retrospect we see that. There are certainly plenty of examples with Apple making what I would call dumb mistakes.
Launching MobileMe at the same time as the iOS 3(?) and the iPhone 3GS(?) without letting .Mac users use it first, without offering an invite feature, and/or without requiring a credit card for the free 30 day trial completely killed that long effort. It was otherwise a decent result once all the extreme access died down but the damage was done.
They aren't getting ad revenue from users of Google Android devices?
Apparently, the ad revenue from Android (which accounts for 80% of global market share) is still a pittance compared to the revenue from users on the IOS platform (despite making up just a minority share), if an earlier Appleinsider article is to be believed.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/29/google_earns_80_of_its_mobile_revenue_from_ios_just_20_from_android
Go figure.
That's partly because Android doesn't have 80% marketshare, that was for a recent financial quarter. The amount of devices out there, it's below 2:1 Android:iOS and I suspect a lot of ad networks are regional e.g some might not operate in Asia.
The weird thing about Android fans is they buy and promote Android devices with the intention of supporting Google but if Google makes more money from iOS and buying Android devices actually gives Microsoft (Google's main competitor) more money from patent royalties, buying an Android device would end up being worse for Google than buying an iPhone and yet they try to put people off buying iPhones.
Interesting take Marvin. There's probably some Android fans that applies to.
But I'd guess that a whole lotta Android smartphone buyers don't even know the OS comes from Google. For that matter there's probably many iPhone buyers that have no idea what iOS is or that it's different from OS's on other smartphones or even what an OS is. I don't think a lot of consumers put that much thought or research into it. They see a smartphone, want one and buy for reasons other than what operating system it runs. Heck I've heard comments from a few folks that refer to any smartphone they see as an iPhone. You probably have too.
Here's an opinion piece from last year. Maybe it's not all about immediate results.
http://gigaom.com/2012/04/01/why-google-isnt-worried-about-androids-revenue/
and one more with how Google makes money from mobile. This one includes a pretty cool infographic.
http://socialmediatoday.com/daniel-zeevi/1323421/infographic-how-does-google-make-money-mobile
But that's exactly the point. They obviously thought it would help sales - which refutes dasaman69's insistence that no one pays attention to benchmarks except geeks.
If he left it at "no one pays attention to benchmarks" I would agree with you and have noted such an absolute comment clearly can't be true but he added "except geeks" which I think can easily be argued.
Surely we all don't define the term geek the same way but I can't discount that people reading reading raw benchmarks and buying because of that aren't actually geeks. I'm sure some might be enthusiasts but I'd still call them geeks.
I'd even say that those would buy based solely on those benchmarks are not very good geek as they are clearly ignoring the fundamental reason for all technology is to be used or aid one or more individuals, such as Apple tends to due when they balance performance and power usage in their mobile devices… which are also now the most powerful on the market.
I think we both agree the risk and reward are both pretty minimal that neither of us would have even considered it had we worked for these companies.