4 ms·

I agree with the posted article more, but i see your stance (and the others who echo your stance) as equally valid. I think the difference between the two is ho

by Crinus 7y ago

I agree with the posted article more, but i see your stance (and the others who echo your stance) as equally valid. I think the difference between the two is how you already have fallen into using smartphones. My POV and i guess the author's is from people who do not really use smartphones much (personally i never use any app, i only use twitter and other social sites from the desktop via the web browser and that sporadically, i never allow any site or app to push notifications and my only use for my smartphone outside being a phone to make and receive calls is to read websites and ebooks). But i suspect if you consider smartphones an essential part of your life (i don't, i only carry it with me just in case something happens since i am in a foreign country, but at my home i could regularly forget it at my place - even forget to recharge it for days) then you can see other negative aspects past those mentioned in the article. So essentially, it isn't really that "smartphones are shitty computers with too many limitations" vs "smartphones are sucking, dopamine delivery systems" but "smartphones are shitty computers with too many limitations and sucking, dopamine delivery systems". It is only your POV that changes which one you see as worse.

dangus 7y ago
I could see someone who gets a lot of use out of a smartphone feeling that normal computers are more limiting. After all, my computer can't call a rideshare, it can't navigate, it can't call my mom, it can't connect to the Internet outside my home or a coffee shop, it can't take photos and videos, it can't fit in my pocket, it can't pay for things in a store, it can't deposit checks, it can't measure objects in my house, it doesn't know where north, south, east, west, up, or down are, and it can't stay in a useful standby mode all day without draining out the battery, it can't get wet without damaging it, it can't play music for me while I'm outside exercising, it can't scan QR codes, it can't be used as a boarding pass or show ticket, it can't tell my security system when I've left the house...
- Crinus 7y ago
  Most of those (e.g. having a GPS, being able to deposit checks, measuring objects, making calls, playing music, etc) do not affect desktop computers though, which is the issues i and apparently the author of the linked article have with smartphones.
  - dangus 7y ago
    They don't affect desktop computers because desktop computers can't do those things. That was kind of my point - a lot of people who weren't introduced to desktop computers first won't really find them to be terribly useful compared to what their phone can do. My original idea was to write a critique of the article going down each complaint, but I decided against it due to length/time. My thoughts briefly/not-so briefly: - By the author's definition, an Arduino is an "unequal" device because you can't program it from itself. And yet it's a very popular fully open source embedded computer. - A smartphone user might consider the fact that their laptop to "not be a real network device" since it can't connect to the Internet outside of WiFi range. The complaint about battery usage applies 100% to any sort of laptop computer - if you leave your IRC client running you will most certainly eventually run out of battery. There are plenty of IRC clients for iOS and Android. - Centralization was happening without smartphones, because it's a convenience feature for non-technical users. It's fine to criticize someone like me for backing up my photos using iCloud, but it's also important to recognize that before these centralized services existed, non-technical users really didn't have options. And there was plenty of centralization in the years leading up to smartphones: AOL, AIM, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, Flickr, Xanga, LiveJournal, etc. - They have ruined web design, says the author with the webpage from 1995 with a giant obstructing background image. - If there are no secure smartphones, is a PC with a proprietary BIOS really secure? Is a PC tricking non-technical users to install unsigned code, toolbars, and fake anti-virus programs secure compared to a centralized app store? There is no 100% secure system, is there? It's about mitigating and reducing risk. The tl;dr of this is that, the real flaw of this article is the author's perspective. I respect the author for holding these idealogical viewpoints, but they'll only hold weight with a tiny, tiny subculture of computing purists. There are 3 billion smartphone users out there, and many of them will never own a computer. Most people never write a line of code. This is all OK. I'm sure there's some kind of ideological win that refraining from smartphones rewards a person with, but to me it just feels like someone who's not using the new thing because they don't understand it and want to resist change. Like how my grandparents still drive to the bank, walk up to the teller, and withdraw cash from a human. I'm sure it's nice in some ways but it's also a massive waste of time, effort, and resources.

by Crinus 7y ago

dangus 7y ago

I could see someone who gets a lot of use out of a smartphone feeling that normal computers are more limiting. After all, my computer can't call a rideshare, it can't navigate, it can't call my mom, it can't connect to the Internet outside my home or a coffee shop, it can't take photos and videos, it can't fit in my pocket, it can't pay for things in a store, it can't deposit checks, it can't measure objects in my house, it doesn't know where north, south, east, west, up, or down are, and it can't stay in a useful standby mode all day without draining out the battery, it can't get wet without damaging it, it can't play music for me while I'm outside exercising, it can't scan QR codes, it can't be used as a boarding pass or show ticket, it can't tell my security system when I've left the house...

Crinus 7y ago
Most of those (e.g. having a GPS, being able to deposit checks, measuring objects, making calls, playing music, etc) do not affect desktop computers though, which is the issues i and apparently the author of the linked article have with smartphones.
- dangus 7y ago
  They don't affect desktop computers because desktop computers can't do those things. That was kind of my point - a lot of people who weren't introduced to desktop computers first won't really find them to be terribly useful compared to what their phone can do. My original idea was to write a critique of the article going down each complaint, but I decided against it due to length/time. My thoughts briefly/not-so briefly: - By the author's definition, an Arduino is an "unequal" device because you can't program it from itself. And yet it's a very popular fully open source embedded computer. - A smartphone user might consider the fact that their laptop to "not be a real network device" since it can't connect to the Internet outside of WiFi range. The complaint about battery usage applies 100% to any sort of laptop computer - if you leave your IRC client running you will most certainly eventually run out of battery. There are plenty of IRC clients for iOS and Android. - Centralization was happening without smartphones, because it's a convenience feature for non-technical users. It's fine to criticize someone like me for backing up my photos using iCloud, but it's also important to recognize that before these centralized services existed, non-technical users really didn't have options. And there was plenty of centralization in the years leading up to smartphones: AOL, AIM, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, Flickr, Xanga, LiveJournal, etc. - They have ruined web design, says the author with the webpage from 1995 with a giant obstructing background image. - If there are no secure smartphones, is a PC with a proprietary BIOS really secure? Is a PC tricking non-technical users to install unsigned code, toolbars, and fake anti-virus programs secure compared to a centralized app store? There is no 100% secure system, is there? It's about mitigating and reducing risk. The tl;dr of this is that, the real flaw of this article is the author's perspective. I respect the author for holding these idealogical viewpoints, but they'll only hold weight with a tiny, tiny subculture of computing purists. There are 3 billion smartphone users out there, and many of them will never own a computer. Most people never write a line of code. This is all OK. I'm sure there's some kind of ideological win that refraining from smartphones rewards a person with, but to me it just feels like someone who's not using the new thing because they don't understand it and want to resist change. Like how my grandparents still drive to the bank, walk up to the teller, and withdraw cash from a human. I'm sure it's nice in some ways but it's also a massive waste of time, effort, and resources.