Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jiggawatts 1634 days ago
Taste.

It takes time and experience to develop, and the masses on average don't have it. As in, they might have developed taste for a few products, but not most products. Hence, the mass-market products are aimed at people with no taste, because that captures the largest slice of the consumers.

Random examples:

- In A/B tests, the typical personal will rate louder music as better. Hence, all bars and pubs turn their music up to 11, to the point that it's horrendously distorted, causes physical pain, and forces everyone to scream at the top of their lungs to be heard.

- Sugary, salty and fatty foods are consistently rated by typical people as more tasty than foods without them. Hence, all fast-food restaurants load their foods up with those elements instead of more expensive flavourings such as herbs and spices.

- Just look at the typical gaming PC market. RGB LEDs are now almost "essential", despite adding nothing material to the performance or capability of the system other than a garish blinken-light-show. You can't see the gigahertz, but you sure can see the LEDs!

- Cars are perceived to be more sporty if they have a loud exhaust with a deep note to it. So of course, every "sports" car has literal fake exhaust that's "tuned" to make this particular noise.

Etc, etc...

It's all down to bad taste.

5 comments

Or they just have different tastes then you do, which is a far cry from having 'no taste'. People consistently prefer and rate headphones with more bass as more appealing, for example. That's why consumer brands are bass-heavy. It matches the taste of the market. If you need a flat audio profile where the mids and highs and bass are all at the same level you have to pick up a pair of studio monitors.
> If you need a flat audio profile where the mids and highs and bass are all at the same level you have to pick up a pair of studio monitors.

Which is what many of us do.

There is nothing wrong when it comes to subjective taste. However I think there is some level of objectivity to many things that can be applied to an extent. For example, if there is so much bass that much of the other frequencies are not audible, then I think it is an objectively bad setup. Or if your food is prepared with so much sugar/salt/fat/seasonings that you can't even taste the main ingredient, then it's objectively not very good (or at the very least, a waste of the main ingredient).
> Sugary, salty and fatty foods are consistently rated by typical people as more tasty than foods without them

Sweet, salty and/or fatty tastes form a pretty solid basis for many delicious snacks/hors d'oeuvres/desserts - highbrow or lowbrow - though I personally like tangy as well as textures like crunchy, creamy, chewy, spongy; and sometimes other tastes like bitter, savory, or piquant as well. These are tastes that humans (and other creatures) have developed and retained over thousands of years.

Omitting sweet/salty/creamy greatly reduces the scope of cuisine.

> Sugary, salty and fatty foods are consistently rated by typical people as more tasty than foods without them. Hence, all fast-food restaurants load their foods up with those elements instead of more expensive flavourings such as herbs and spices.

I love this one. Want to convince someone with an unsophisticated palette that you are the greatest chef in history? Just start loading everything you make with butter and sugar. Salty and sweet === good to most people.

You can buy MSG on amazon and instantly make anything taste great.
You can buy MSG in any store. Why Amazon?

It doesn't have much effect. I make fried rice with and without it and can't really tell the difference.

It's even worse with Harley-Davidson motorcycles. They're not just going for low and loud, they have a specific profile that they tune their engines for. It will be interesting to see what they do if they ever make an electric.
Harley-Davidson does make electrics, they're very expensive, which I guess is another way to be loud.
Hearing this and Steve Jobs’ critique of Microsoft, “they have no taste” is stunning.

Taking the iPhone as the mass consumer computer, must mean that as a computing device the iPhone has very little taste…

Which in a sense I can definitely see…

iPhones are definitely aimed at the more discerning, up-market customer. Android meanwhile is for the mass-market.

iPhones have four levels of encryption designed to thwart the likes of the FBI trying to get data out of your confiscated phones. Androids have a checkbox tick that basically says "Encryption: Yes".

iPhones have 1000-nit OLED HDR screens that are colour-managed and calibrated out of the box, and have Dolby Vision HDR system-wide.

Etc, etc...

iPhones are for people that actually care about their privacy, aren't blind, and appreciate the "small touches". Androids are for people that don't mind factory-installed crapware, as long as it's cheap.

You aren't really comparing apples to apples here. Android is an open source operating system used by dozens of different hardware vendors. Crapware is only installed by some vendors. And iphone rarely has the best displays. They usually trade places with a few other Android vendors for best camera. As for security, iphone usually is the best. But it varies with different Android vendors in how well or how poorly they implement security.
The iPhone 13 literally has the best display currently available, and more importantly, it's colour managed correctly. It is manufactured by Samsung, and they use the same panel in their own flagship phone, but they don't colour-manage as well or as consistently, making the iPhone the overall winner in my book. Other Android manufacturers have markedly worse displays in every metric.

The fact that you don't appreciate this just reinforces my point: you don't happen to have "taste" in phone screens. That's okay! I have bad taste in cars, wine, sport, and a bunch of other stuff.

Actually, it just doesn't. Firstly Apple doesn't just use Samsung, they also use BOE and LG panels, so they'd have to be calibrated to the lesser of either.

Unless there is massive unit variance, which is even worse.

So much for taste :)

My android phone has a folding screen that allows it to double as a tablet. Checkmate.
wtf is dolby-vision HDR? Sounds like cheap marketing crap like “Extra Bass Boost”

I rock an iphone because the SE is cheap and the camera is good, if I cared about privacy I wouldn’t have a phone with always on microphones and cameras…

NSO group’s Pegasus was cross-platform, so as far as I’m concerned the security point is moot, people buy iphones and androids for various reasons, and it’s easier to judge someone’s “upmarketness” by the stickerprice of their flagship, not the OS it runs…

HDR10 is the crap Samsung invented, which just extends 8-bit colour to 10-bit colour (from 256 shades of intensity to 1024). This is not enough to display smooth gradients when going from the blackest blacks to the brightest whites that a high-dynamic range (HDR) screen is capable of. Hence, it causes visible banding, especially in "blue skies" or similar smooth areas of slowly changing colour.

Samsung worked around this by applying a post-processing filter that smooths out the banding... sometimes. It also almost always smooths away fine detail, ruining the 4K details. (Similarly, their 8K screens appear less detailed than some 4K screens for other but equally silly reasons.)

Dolby Vision uses a more optimal allocation of signal "bits" to the spectrum of colours and intensities visible to the human eye. The ideal is that each colour and each shade would be perfectly evenly distributed, so that "512" would be exactly half as perceptually bright as "1024", etc... The Dolby Vision encoding does this very nearly perfectly, eliminating visible banding without having to hide them by smudging the decoded picture. This optimal colour-volume encoding also means that transforms like scaling or brightness changes don't introduce colour-shifts or relative brightness shifts.

If you've never seen a DV video taken with an iPhone Pro 13 displayed on its OLED, you just don't know what you're missing. Go to an Apple store and play with one for a few minutes.

But seriously, companies like Samsung like to shave 50 cents off their flagship products by not paying DV their licensing fees. They figure that cutting corners like this doesn't matter, because most customers have no taste in image quality anyway, and just want BRIGHTER! COLORS! and nothing else.

They're right.

You don't care, and you're happy to save 50c on a $10K television or a $1K mobile phone.

Don't group $50 device and $2000 device as "Android".
You can buy a $2000 Android loaded with crapware.
You can also buy a $50 Android without.

What's your point?