Tech Reviewers, Familiar doesn’t automatically mean “BETTER”

If tech reviewers can’t handle nuanced differences, then what good are we?

Different solutions will perform differently, and the different “feel” is what reviewers are meant to convey. It’s not a reviewer’s job to take the most popular solution for a need, and treat that as a “standard” by which every competing solution must be judged. That’s the easiest way to rig the game, and ensure that any competition is viewed as inferior.

Rationally, when presented with the paragraph above, most of us probably nod along. We “know” this. Yet when presented with actual reviews of consumer electronics, all too often, the review scene falls in line with whatever is most popular. It’s broadly the most familiar, and we use that popularity as evidence that it must be “better”.

Take keyboards for example.

I prefer typing on Google’s keyboard, because it reminds me the most of Microsoft’s Windows Phone keyboard. I know people that came up with SwiftBoard, and prefer the feel of that keyboard. I don’t prefer the twitchiness of LG’s keyboard, but Android isn’t smart enough to use a keyboard on a dual screen phone without custom code. If I want to type on a better landscape thumb board, I need to get a FEEL for using LG’s solution.

That means, I need to use that one solution enough where I can anticipate what it might do in different situations. It’s more than just KNOWING it will perform differently. It’s a level of proficiency where you can anticipate HOW it will perform differently AS you’re using it.

You need to get a FEEL for it.

It really doesn’t matter how “good at tech” you are. The muscle memory where you can comfortably take that use for granted only comes with time. Maybe that time is worth the investment, maybe it’s not. There’s no way to really know until each individual takes that trek for themselves. I can share my personal experience, but there’s no way for me to say:

“If you live with this keyboard for a month, you’ll like it better than what you currently use because of X, Y, and Z.”

That familiarity hurdle is an intense obstacle for competing manufacturers to overcome, so I never discount the experiences of individual consumers if they aren’t motivated to make a change. Life is complex enough. Someone just trying to make it through their day likely doesn’t want to also add the frustration of retraining muscle memory on top of their normal routine, unless they have a good reason to entertain that change.

But tech reviewers should be different. Tech reviewers should be reviewing a product with an eye on who might be the best fit for that product. Tech reviewers should not be editorializing change as a way to validate the purchase of a more popular product.

“I used this phone for a couple days, and it just doesn’t work the way the phone I LIVE with works! It should just work!”

Cameras are another easy way to demonstrate this attitude in action. How a camera captures light, reacts to input, processes an image, and delivers the final output is a crazy string of hardware and software.

Every camera you use will FEEL different, even if major aspects of each camera are similar.

I’ve used this example in numerous editorials before, but it bears repeating.

If I take a successful wedding photographer who shoots on Canon cameras, and on the day of a wedding, I switch them to a Sony system, they WILL be less effective at their job. It won’t matter how technologically superior Sony’s system might be, removing their familiarity with the tools means they will be THINKING about every interaction with the camera, instead of following the event they’re trying to capture.

This exact situation happened to me last Christmas. I took a Sony A7iii for a test drive, but I normally shoot on Panasonic cameras.

It was DAYS before I felt reasonably sure I could capture content that would highlight the advantages on Sony’s system against Panasonic’s hardware. However, even after a week, I still had to deliberately THINK about adjustments and pay attention to settings on the Sony, that were nearly unconscious manipulations on my Panasonic.

The same holds true for phone cameras, maybe doubly so.

One reason why my camera deep dives take so long to produce, I don’t shoot samples until I feel reasonably comfortable that I can operate that phone camera without THINKING about it. We shouldn’t take for granted that “lived with” experience. If you’re paying attention to the settings, options, the speed of the autofocus, the post processing return time, then you aren’t paying as much attention to the composition and exposure of your scene.

Even full auto to full auto, if you LIVE with one phone, then all of that consideration and attention falls into the background, and you’re MOST focused on creating the content. If you dabble on a competing phone, far less of your attention will be applied to the content, and more to the management of the gadget.

Just like the wedding photographer example, your output will be poorer.

That doesn’t mean one phone camera is better than another. It doesn’t mean the human operating the camera is suddenly “less good” at photography. It ONLY means that the photog was more experienced with one set of tools than the other set of tools.

That said, if a reviewer can’t knowledgeably convey HOW the systems might differ, then they really aren’t doing their job. Lazily saying “I pushed an auto HDR shutter button on both, and I like the camera I’m more familiar with” isn’t particularly valuable or informed review commentary.

The worst thing to happen to tech reviews was watching reviewers fall for “It Just Works” marketing.

Nothing “just works”.

You just expect certain reactions from a gadget when you’re familiar with it. When something performs outside of that expectation it can be frustrating. This is basic stimulus, expectation, response psychology.

We also know nothing “just works” because products need to evolve and improve over time. When the iPhone XS launched, I made this video about how much of a mess iOS was to use.

A lot of people bristled at that video. The general reactions often pointed to their own personal experiences (“I LIKE the way Apple organizes apps”) or some appeal to popularity.

“Apple is the most profitable, and millions of people use the iPhone, so people MUST prefer this style UI, and you’re incorrect, because fewer people think like you do.”

(We called that a “Bandwagon Fallacy” in my debate team exercises.)

Now on iOS 14 however, Apple has seen how the original iPhone UI experience is lagging farther and farther behind as consumer are installing more apps and services. They can call it a “Library”, but essentially, if you want Windows Phone style widgets, and better organization for a larger collection of apps, you have to offer an app drawer.

Folks complaining like me were just ahead of the curve.

Switching the UI on an iPhone will be a frustrating experience for a lot of people. We shouldn’t minimize that. Not because App Library will be “Better” or “Worse”, but simply because it will be different. iOS fans aren’t used to THINKING about their UI like that. It will be unfamiliar.

[A snarky little thought exercise. For those folks who change up the iPhone UI embracing features like widgets and app drawers, and take the time to really live those changes, might you have appreciated those features on a competing phone if you’d really lived with them? Kind of no way to really know, since we can’t properly separate the emotion and ecosystem of Apple vs Android from the equation. Just an intellectual exercise to play with, but I digress…]

Reviewers breathlessly protect the experience of “average consumers”, but what does that mean?

Who is an “average consumer”?

Is an “average consumer” someone covering basic communication and social media services on a phone? Is an “average consumer” someone who is more likely to own a phone from a more “popular” manufacturer that pours more money into advertising, and boosts the video view rate of their products on YouTube, thereby improving ad payouts for content creators?

Those two “demographics” of people aren’t necessarily the same.

Wrapping this editorial up with the question I offered at the top of this article, if reviewers aren’t really tackling the nuanced differences of competing products, then what good are we?

If a reviewer’s job (and livelihood) depends on validating the status quo of the most popular manufacturers, then why bother? Sure, it’s fun watching a video of someone telling you that you made a wise purchase AFTER you already spent your money, but that’s not all a review should be. It’s about as much entertainment value as just watching the commercials directly from the manufacturer.

A review should encourage improvements to new products.

Sony brought back the headphone jack in part because of consumer feedback. Samsung brought back manual modes to their cameras in part because of push-back against their “pro grade camera” claims. Apple is delivering widgets and an app drawer because of criticisms, more than the people that just blindly parrot Apple marketing.

For consumers, a review should inform those who are looking to make a purchasing decision as well as entertain those who have already spent their money. Though, I don’t believe you can do the former as well if you’re also trying to “protect” the “average consumer” status quo, which is reinforced by Facebook and YouTube “trending topic” popularity algorithms.

You literally make less money as a reviewer when you take the time to properly familiarize yourself with different competing gadgets. That’s not likely to change any time soon.

Just thought you should know.