|
The problem with UMPC reviews |
|
Written by Bjorn Stromberg
|
|
Thursday, 16 August 2007 |
|
I read something interesting over on GottaBeMobile today, Matt Faulkner was talking about PC Magazine's review of the Samsung Q1 Ultra. There's been a lot of coverage about how the Intel A110 processor isn't living up to all the hype, and how it really shows on Samsung's flagship the Q1 Ultra. However, Matt wasn't writing about the A110, he's writing about how PC Magazine compared a UMPC with a full sized Tablet PC:
One item I really don't understand is the comparison they listed for Performance Tests. Samsung Q1 Ultra vs. Lenovo x60?? I don't understand how you can compare an 800 mhz ultra mobile processor with a 2.0 ghz Dual Core machine... $1000.00 machine vs. $2,699.00 machine... 29-Wh battery vs. 75-Wh battery... Wouldn't it be a little better to compare with another UMPC or the OQO Model 02? I mean, you are comparing this to a full sized Tablet PC. What do you think? Are they being fair? I think that the UMPC has been around long enough to get a review compared against a similar machine.
This topic has been touched on by VIA's Richard Brown on his blog. I'd call it the rise of the blogs over traditional media as we're finding passionate people writing in-depth articles about various devices. As Richard puts it:
Here's a question for you. If you were thinking about buying a new OQO model 02, what would you trust more as a source of information?
1. A "professional" review of the device conducted by a leading print publication or website.
2. A "user-generated" review of the device carried out by an enthusiast who has just purchased one.
Well, you can get your chance to decide by checking these reviews that have been posted on the Gadgeteer and Kenrick's Blog on Technology, Teaching, and Learning and compare them with a "professionally" produced one such as this piece on CNet.
The great liberator (the Internet), is giving everyone a voice and we're slowly realizing that perhaps the media that has been traditionally trusted to inform us may not be the best source of information. Newspapers and magazines are already feeling the effects as readers are more and more turning to the Internet and it's vast amounts of information created by all kinds of different sources. Which sources do you rely on now? Do you find yourself going to the Internet more often when you are looking for information? What online resources do you find invaluable?
|
|
|
Erwos
Thursday, 16 August 2007
Not all blogs are created equal. I'm noticing that this one seems to have heavy sponsorship by VIA. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but one wonders if there would be more bias in a review from here than, say, PC Magazine (which has more diverse advertisers).
But, ignoring that, I see it both ways. Yes, UMPCs should be compared against UMPCs, especially when it comes to final ratings. But I don't think it's entirely unfair to talk about the limitations and benefits of a UMPC versus, say, a modern 12" tablet.
Visitor
Thursday, 16 August 2007
While I find many blogs interesting, most are written by zealots.
Consider your article saying "it's not fair to compare."
You are certainly correct on a technical level, but the performance comparisons are necessary because of user expectations.
Bjorn Stromberg
Friday, 17 August 2007
Hi Erwos:
This blog is sponsored by VIA, but that brings up a point. Usually it's a lot more clear who is sponsoring a blog than a magazine. When you see a positive review of a Lenovo laptop, you can only wonder how much money Lenovo spends on that magazine. Blogs generally do not have loads of sponsors and tend to be a lot more forthcoming about disclosure.
As far as the comparisons are concerned, I think it's absurd that the reviewer's conclusion is that consumers will have a better experience on a notebook that costs 2x or 2.5x as much. The two notebooks Cisco lists at the end of his review cost $2150 and $2700 respectively. If they want to be taken seriously, they'd compare the Q1 Ultra to other devices that have similar prices.
Erwos
Friday, 17 August 2007
"Blogs generally do not have loads of sponsors and tend to be a lot more forthcoming about disclosure."
Yours is up-front about it (well, somewhat), but that's not always the case. Whenever you guys gush over the NanoBook, do you really think people don't wonder if VIA's bought you out? (FYI, I love the NanoBook, too!)
You say it's true, but I'm not convinced. As I say this as someone who runs a couple of blogs.
"If they want to be taken seriously, they'd compare the Q1 Ultra to other devices that have similar prices."
But, you and I both know the truth: a $1500 tablet would completely outperform a $1500 UMPC. Quibbling that the comparison used more expensive notebooks is kind of beside the point.
Visitor
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Two points:
a) Regarding the question on "who would I trust more as a source of information":
Neither - I would read both and consider both in my decision - as for trusting, it would depend on the magazin, the blogger and basically on the way an article is written.
b) Regarding the comparison between UMPCs and full size tablets / notebooks:
It is not unfair - as long as the reviewer points out that he is basically compairing apples with oranges - and why he does it. After all, some people might actually not be sure what kind of mobile device they actually are looking for.
Just putting the raw data side by side would certainly be unfair.
However, I would also like to see reviews in computer magazines that compare different UMPCs.
As for the price discussion: In the computer world smaller mostly means more expensive - and if you are located in Europe like me and look at the prices for those toys, you always realize that UMPC (and tablet) manufacturers like to rip off their European customers (comapred to US prices)