Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Which is more important: the gadget, or the software and apps that runs it?

(1/13) > >>

zridling:


Which is more important: the gadget or the software and apps that runs it?
Let me explain. It seems we are on the edge of either gadgetopia (wunderbar!) or gadgetphrenia (oh damn!), pulling us away from the desktop as fast as they can to the cloud where mega-corporations can soon charge us for every click, swipe, or tap. There's android, iOS, and Windows, among others. With ereaders you have broad fragmentation as the market and the industry is racing to find ways to charge as much as possible -- in as many creative ways as possible -- for content, device, and its features. Amazon announced a discounted ad-supported Kindle this week. (The ads will only gain you a 17% discount, however.) Every week brings a new ereader, but I'm still on the fence until they're open devices running on open formats.

Therefore, does the device/gadget win you over or is it the software/apps that run it?

Ath:
That's easy: Applications.

I've been stalling on getting an e-reader just because it's (nearly) a single-function aparatus, in favor of a decently sized tablet that can run (almost any) other stuff too, besides being an anything-reader. It's most likely not going to be an iPad though 8)

Renegade:
That's easy: Applications.

I've been stalling on getting an e-reader just because it's (nearly) a single-function aparatus, in favor of a decently sized tablet that can run (almost any) other stuff too, besides being an anything-reader. It's most likely not going to be an iPad though 8)
-Ath (May 26, 2011, 01:14 AM)
--- End quote ---

+1

Hardware tells you what is possible, while software operates inside those limits to actually do something. A CPU is useless unless it's powered up with software.

steeladept:
I sort of disagree.  It really depends on the perspective.  If I am the creator of the device, then the gadget does.  If I am the creator of the content, the content does.  If I am the creator of the app, then the app does.  The problem with the question as I see it is all three have to come together for the consumer to answer that.  In the end, it is the content that matters, the rest is just a delivery mechanism.  However, content providers make choices that directly affect those choices.  The good news is that apps (and hence the content) are much more easily designed to work on different gadgets than it is to design a gadget that works.
 
Almost Nonsensical ExampleIf app 123 is the only app that provides content ABC, then I will only look at gadgets that run 123.  Does that mean it can't be developed for gadget z34?  Nope, well, there is no reason it couldn't be other than developer choice and gadget creator's authorization (through API's, licenses, etc).  But the app designer didn't for whatever reason.  But what if z34 has something that runs content ABC, but the app is app 456?  Does that work?  Probably.  So now it is back to content is king - except now that you have device z34, app 456, and content ABC, you find content CDE that you also want, but 456 doesn't support it, only 123 does.  And app 789 runs only on z34, because that is the only device that has a wizding and you want that app too.  So what do you do?  It really is a circle of what combination of device, apps, & content deliver everything you want/need in your device.  Sure, content is king and the only real consumable, but content delivery is just as important if you want to be able to consume it.

Okay, now that I finished with that hyperbole, I agree, it is definitely the content that matters.  It is the only consumable that you care about.  How it is delivered is irrelevant as long as it IS delivered.  That is, unless you are making money on the delivery :P

Edvard:
Double-edged sword.

Lackluster software running on awesome hardware is frustrating and puzzling at the least, and plain stupid at worst, though the hope then remains that the software can be updated or apps developed to take advantage of the hardware's capabilities.

Great software attempting to run on under-powered hardware is downright painful.

So... I'll have to disagree.
+1 for hardware.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page