One of the most effective aspect of benchmarking - perofrmance and other aspects - is to give these devices to different group of teeenage schoold children. Probebly they are the most prolific user of these devices and hence can test them best. Their feedbacks are more authentic, less prejudiced. If teenage likes and approves mobile device, it will be a good indication of success too.
That said, simplicity of a user interface does win a lot of "average" consumers' hearts.
Indeed, and that's been a major factor in Apple's success. They put a lot of thought into their UI, and users of Apple gear can tap an icon or select a menu choice and largely expect it to do what they think it will do, the way they think it should do it.
Apple also enforces UI guidleines on third-party apps, so Apple's overall approach is "Have it our way." Apple preserves the quality of the user's experience by placing restrictions on what that experience is. Since Apple users can generally do what they want, or get an app that does, they don't see this as an imposition. Folks who want more control over and ability to customize their device won't agree, but aren't likely to buy Apple gear in the first place.
As an average consumer, I would pay attention to such matters
Which is why the tech sites all carry lengthy reviews that delve into usage, to give users an idea of what to expect if they get the device.
even if that is not a kind of things benchmarks are good at in quantifying.
And you touched on the key point. Benchmarks quantify, and UI quality is the sort of thing that largely can't be quantified. Benchmark values will affect it, by measuring capacities of the underlying hardware to do what the user wants when they tap something. You can assume more powerful hardware will be more responsive, and may even make possible actions that can't be performed on a less powerful device. But this, too, is something I expect a review to cover.
I think the question boils down to this: since an average consumer of smartphones is not all that benchmark savvy, do these metrics really matter when selecting a smartphone?
Consumer Reports, for example, offers the service of comparing mobile phones. But I am not sure if that's regarded as highly as their reports on cars. Part of the reason is mobile handsets are cheaper (than cars) and they reflect more individual tastes.
But I believe what BDTI is trying to do is not for marketing their benchmark results to consumers directly, but to give the electronics industry an opportunity to look at the perfomance of a whole phone (rather than individual component).
Which phone is best? Its like which shirt fits everyone... Every user has different expectation from phone. I have Galaxy S4 and if I dial down the network usage it can sustain battery ife for upto 4 days for me.. good enough, beats iPhone. But for other users where they are looking for stay connected iPhone performed better (for one person I know :) ).
Benchmarks can just compare particular aspect of phone. Ok graphics is genious in a particular phone, but how many seconds (not even in minutes) in phone's life have we pushed graphics to that need? LTE can achieve 100Mbps speed but how many pllaces we get signal to hit that speed and even if we hit how many need it? Battery life is purely per user's settings.. a phone can vary its batter life from 1x to 7x (or more) depending upon what function and how often we enable it..
I dont believe in a benchmark that can clearly tell which phone is better from other.
There is a good conversation on a separate but related topic going on over at SemiWiki. It's a follow-on thread to an excellent post by Paul McLellan specifically about benchmarking processors. http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/2675-how-benchmark-processor.html
Well, maybe it's high time for some bright marketing people to come up with UI benchmarketing!
That should be hilarious if someone tries, because UIs are so highly subjective. Your idea of a good UI might drive me screaming from the room. Which is "best"?
Consider Linux, where you have a variety of desktop managers - Gnome, Kde, Xfce4, Lxde, Unity...each somewhat to very different from the others, and each with a following that insists it is best. (One reason many folks like Linux is because you have that range of choice in UIs.)
"The least keystrokes/touches needed to accomplish a task" may not be a meaningful benchmark. What if it only takes one or two to run the app and perform a function, but if you use more you get extra options and better control? (Like when you're taking a picture with your phones camera, and you might get a better result if you don't just take the phone app's presets) An app that take one click to bring up the photo app and snap a picture might win on simplicity, but a competitor that used more taps might take a better photo. Who wins?
I'll settle for marketing and reviews that do a decent job of explaining the design assumptions and giving a feel for how you use the device.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.