Just interested, does Software or Hardware matter to you most when looking into devices/technology?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does Software or Hardware matter to you most?
- Thread starter NbinHD
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At this moment in time for the iPhone, I'd have to say both software and hardware are equally important for the next gen iPhone, but otherwise, software rules.
Unfortunately, given the direction and pace iOS is moving, I'm slowly realizing and accepting that the software isn't for me. I don't want to speak too soon until October, but the ship is sailing.
Unfortunately, given the direction and pace iOS is moving, I'm slowly realizing and accepting that the software isn't for me. I don't want to speak too soon until October, but the ship is sailing.
Is your heart or your lungs more important to you? I mean, know both are important, but which matters most to you when choosing to live?
Before entering into the Apple universe, i would have said software 100%. Now that i see the difference, i would say hardware is equally important.
iMHO, you can have the best hardware in the business but if it has crappy software driving it, well then it's useless
and the same goes for software, it can be the most intuitive there is but again if the hardware can't support it then what's the point
and the same goes for software, it can be the most intuitive there is but again if the hardware can't support it then what's the point
Generally both for me, but I have to say I'm getting bored with iOS after 5 years and software is becoming more important to me here lately.
I kind of agree, but the most useful apps are the same no matter what OS you have, to an extent.
Depends on exactly what you are talking about. While cores and ghz are important with hardware I feel software is more important. If you mean things like LTE chips and NFC I feel hardware is more important.
In the end I'd say both are equally important but I lean toward software because that will determine user experience in the end.
In the end I'd say both are equally important but I lean toward software because that will determine user experience in the end.
Changing software is easier compared to hardware; that makes the HW more important; SW can be changed faster; bug fix in HW is very difficult.
When thinking hardware, I don't necessarily see it as "specs."
From my logical perspective, software is changeable (well, depending on the creators and their willingness to update). Software controls, manages, and regulates the hardware. With bad hardware, you're done.
Think of the iPhone and iOS. iOS is built on the barebone OS Darwin. When there is a "battery" issue, we all know it's a hardware issue.
Nice thing is, with the proper hardware, it's as easy as rolling out new software to fix the hardware issue. We've known Apple to address the battery "hardware" issue with new software.
With bad hardware, they'd have to replace everyone's batteries.
From my logical perspective, software is changeable (well, depending on the creators and their willingness to update). Software controls, manages, and regulates the hardware. With bad hardware, you're done.
Think of the iPhone and iOS. iOS is built on the barebone OS Darwin. When there is a "battery" issue, we all know it's a hardware issue.
Nice thing is, with the proper hardware, it's as easy as rolling out new software to fix the hardware issue. We've known Apple to address the battery "hardware" issue with new software.
With bad hardware, they'd have to replace everyone's batteries.
This is a tough one. I'll say in the past like the 3G and 3Gs a lot of important things were added to the iOS. Now that we have all the necessities and are receiving nice perks, I think this time around the hardware means more to me.
Hardware is more important to me.
Third party developers (Read: jailbroken apps, custom ROMs on Android phones, etc) can push the software out as long as the hardware is there.
Third party developers (Read: jailbroken apps, custom ROMs on Android phones, etc) can push the software out as long as the hardware is there.
For me, I'm ready for a hardware makeover. The 4S does just about everything I could ask software-wise.
They are both very important for a fluid user experience. And also for the potential of new apps. A lot of people get obsessed with specs but they don't realize how under-utilized they often are in a phone or computer. A lot of people get hung up on how boring the iOS interface is, without any regard for how stable and practical it is.
Could iOS use a refresh? Yeah maybe, but as it stands right now we all know how to use it, it's stable, and it does 100% of what I ask of it. If they redesigned the UI MacRumors would probably crash under the explosion of new threads complaining about how the old UI was better. I'm not saying there is no room for improvement, there certainly is. But when it comes to the actual look and feel of iOS I don't see any point in changing it.
Could iOS use a refresh? Yeah maybe, but as it stands right now we all know how to use it, it's stable, and it does 100% of what I ask of it. If they redesigned the UI MacRumors would probably crash under the explosion of new threads complaining about how the old UI was better. I'm not saying there is no room for improvement, there certainly is. But when it comes to the actual look and feel of iOS I don't see any point in changing it.
I couldn't decide and then I realized I tend to buy Mac laptops/desktops so software must be more important . Otherwise I could get a PC and be more flexible on what I wanted in the hardware.
. Otherwise I could get a PC and be more flexible on what I wanted in the hardware.Kind of a tough question in a way.
Look at Apple vs Samsung for example. Not going to get into a debate about which OS is better but lets assume that the hardware (chips, nuts and bolts) are equal across the board. So lets say hypothetically that HTC makes the screens, and chips instead of Samsung and both Apple and Samsung purchase a great deal of hardware from other sources.
Then it comes down to Software and form factor. If the hardware is all pretty much equal across the board, what ends up being the deciding factor is the software.
Would any of you who love the Apple's iP4(s) design buy the phone if it came with Android Gingerbread?
If hardware is almost equal across the board excluding form factor, the defining point is Software.
But yes, you need good quality hardware if you want the device to stand the test of time also.
My vote would be 60%Software, 40% hardware.
Look at Apple vs Samsung for example. Not going to get into a debate about which OS is better but lets assume that the hardware (chips, nuts and bolts) are equal across the board. So lets say hypothetically that HTC makes the screens, and chips instead of Samsung and both Apple and Samsung purchase a great deal of hardware from other sources.
Then it comes down to Software and form factor. If the hardware is all pretty much equal across the board, what ends up being the deciding factor is the software.
Would any of you who love the Apple's iP4(s) design buy the phone if it came with Android Gingerbread?
If hardware is almost equal across the board excluding form factor, the defining point is Software.
But yes, you need good quality hardware if you want the device to stand the test of time also.
My vote would be 60%Software, 40% hardware.
It's all about software for me.
I don't care how fast the new Samsung/LG/HTC phones are, I will take my iPhone 4 with iOS everyday over the current Android phone as iOS is the superior operating system and gives me the better user experience.
I don't care how fast the new Samsung/LG/HTC phones are, I will take my iPhone 4 with iOS everyday over the current Android phone as iOS is the superior operating system and gives me the better user experience.
A very large problem today is that people tend to look at smartphones the same way they look at desktop computers.
They want XX ram, and XX space, etc.
This, to me, seems to be a very archaic way to look at newer technology.
I believe Steve Jobs (I could very well be wrong on that) once said that the software should be so good that it makes the hardware transparent.
Meaning that your software should run and operate so well, that it doesn't matter if you have 2 or 200GBs of RAM, a dual or quad core CPU, etc.
Thus making the product simpler to the masses, and more attractive to the general population that are not techies.
If using this mentality and breaking away from the old antiquated ways of viewing technology, I can clearly understand that logic.
As a manufacturer, this should be your goal. To make it where the consumer doesn't see a need for more memory. "It just works".
However, looking at Android OS, I can see that it seems more based along the lines of building a PC with a desktop OS.
Two different mind sets.
Both have good and bad points. But when your average consumer thinks that facebook is the internet, you'd want to make your product easier.
They want XX ram, and XX space, etc.
This, to me, seems to be a very archaic way to look at newer technology.
I believe Steve Jobs (I could very well be wrong on that) once said that the software should be so good that it makes the hardware transparent.
Meaning that your software should run and operate so well, that it doesn't matter if you have 2 or 200GBs of RAM, a dual or quad core CPU, etc.
Thus making the product simpler to the masses, and more attractive to the general population that are not techies.
If using this mentality and breaking away from the old antiquated ways of viewing technology, I can clearly understand that logic.
As a manufacturer, this should be your goal. To make it where the consumer doesn't see a need for more memory. "It just works".
However, looking at Android OS, I can see that it seems more based along the lines of building a PC with a desktop OS.
Two different mind sets.
Both have good and bad points. But when your average consumer thinks that facebook is the internet, you'd want to make your product easier.