Familiar Quality
I don't like it. It feels... odd.
To the untrained eye of mere mortals, the distinction between two seemingly similar products becomes hazy. We often compare products to ensure we are informed in the world of tech, or for many, to enforce bragging rights via public discussion. Rarely do we think critically about the method, aim and overall benchmark when casually comparing products. Rather, many focus on the conclusion they desire, which can cause a lack of perspective.
By focusing on the conclusion, e.g. "this product is awesome", we're immediately placing ourselves in a subjective position. The intention of the user may be to have an objective stance, but the eagerness to prove this initial positive thought warps the truth to do its bidding. This can be attributed to hype, popularity and first impressions. Nonetheless, there's also another factor that consumes the best of us - familiar quality.
Brand loyalty is generally a no-no in the computing world. The aim is to identify and select the products that will do the job best, or rather, with utmost quality. Unfortunately, the bias nature of brand loyalty can infect the most hardened of professionals - and most don't even realise it. What am I talking about? It's the perception of quality associated with a particular brand, or perhaps a smaller element such as a feature or algorithm.
Enthusiasts can become attached to a product, whether it's because of its feature set or overall performance. The quality of output becomes a given, they become familiar with what they expect from a product. Because of this, the user will consciously link the quality of the output with the traits and features of which the product holds. These links may not reflect the truth, the quality of the output may well be a result from a particular feature, or a component which is unknown (or concealed) to the owner.
What does this mean? When the user compares his product to another, he/she will notice that some elements may be absent. Even if they have no bearing on the output, whatever this may be. They then conclude that the output/performance is inferior.
Using a music player as an example, differing people expect different results from playback. One person may prefer heavy bass over sensitivity and accuracy reproduction. On the other hand, another may be concerned with having utmost clarity without excess bass. These two consumers will infer that the other has the inferior player. Again, the perception of quality.
Continuing with the audio example, the selection of audio products becomes difficult. Being objective is often muddied by the sheer subjectivity of audio quality. The difference between a highly compressed sample of music, and one that is in high quality wave is obvious. However, when it comes to comparing two high end audio formats, the difference becomes almost impossible.
Another interesting element is placebo. People can be easily fooled by being told a product is high quality, when in fact it may be mediocre.
The easist way to avoid falling into the trap of subjectivity is to critically analyse the products being compared. Locate the components which actively contribute to the desired output. Compare them from a technical level. Read reviews, look at forums, and perhaps look at white papers. Make an informed decision, then if possible, test them yourself in an attempt to confirm your findings. Try to discard any bias you may have from an existing product you own - not all products from the same company, or all products with a particular feature, will perform similarly.
In the end it's all about what you like. A product is not necessarily worse if it performs in a different way to what you're accustomed to. But if you prefer it a paricular way, by all means, seek that quality. Be mindful that others may conclude differently. Food for thought.
