3 ms·

A handful of years ago, before anyone had figured out how to properly optimize for attention, we all had small-screen phones. The “small phone” problem is reall

A handful of years ago, before anyone had figured out how to properly optimize for attention, we all had small-screen phones. The “small phone” problem is really just that it’s not as addictive. Apple wants you to spend more time on-screen [0] and so do you [1.] I really hope you’re not thinking about spending less time on-screen. Technology companies love you and care about you. They usually know what’s best. You should probably just get a bigger screen. [0] see: massive financial incentives, developer tooling to help maximize engagement, product design focused on extended use, notoriously useless screen time feature etc [1] we don’t have exact mini sales, but estimates are they were around 6% of total iPhone sales (aka: low, but billions a year in revenue, enough to keep barring other incentives) - more revenue than many other Apple products or the SE, for example. Even if you’re Apple you don’t axe billions in revenue for nothing!

culi 2y ago
Is there actual research suggesting smaller screens promote less screen time?
- owenversteeg 2y ago
  The overwhelming majority of the research on any industry is either directly funded by or indirectly influenced by the industry. This is true for everything from the obvious (pharmaceuticals, smartphones, tobacco historically) to the less obvious (say paint, milk, or drill bits.) In other words, "what does the research say" is a different way to phrase "what is financially valuable to the industry?" One problem I have with what I will term "Trust-the-Science-ism" is that it inherently assumes safety of anything novel; the burden of proof is on the individual to prove it's unsafe, because the corporations care about you, and you should trust the science. PFASs, plasticizers, modern flame retardants, child use of smartphones/social media, general use of screens, et cetera. In reality, who knows if a novel thing is safe? Why not test it out in a truly rigorous fashion? If the benefits from this new thing are so great, we as a society could pay for this thousands of times over. Sadly the incentives never align, these new inventions are rarely challenged, and their studies rarely approach rigor. So, what does the research say on the subject? Nothing, as it turns out - there's nothing substantial published. Why? Well, we know where the influence and interests lie.
avgd 2y ago
> I really hope you’re not thinking about spending less time on-screen. Your sarcastic tone reminds me of a Steve Jobs interview. > In 2010, a New York Times reporter had a conversation that revealed a lot about the life of the founder of Apple. Nick Bilton commented, “Your kids must love the iPad, right?” After the launch of the device. Jobs replied, “They haven't used it. We limit the amount of technology our children use at home. " Yeah, they know what it is that they are doing to the world. And they do not care, profits > humanity.

culi 2y ago

Is there actual research suggesting smaller screens promote less screen time?

owenversteeg 2y ago
The overwhelming majority of the research on any industry is either directly funded by or indirectly influenced by the industry. This is true for everything from the obvious (pharmaceuticals, smartphones, tobacco historically) to the less obvious (say paint, milk, or drill bits.) In other words, "what does the research say" is a different way to phrase "what is financially valuable to the industry?" One problem I have with what I will term "Trust-the-Science-ism" is that it inherently assumes safety of anything novel; the burden of proof is on the individual to prove it's unsafe, because the corporations care about you, and you should trust the science. PFASs, plasticizers, modern flame retardants, child use of smartphones/social media, general use of screens, et cetera. In reality, who knows if a novel thing is safe? Why not test it out in a truly rigorous fashion? If the benefits from this new thing are so great, we as a society could pay for this thousands of times over. Sadly the incentives never align, these new inventions are rarely challenged, and their studies rarely approach rigor. So, what does the research say on the subject? Nothing, as it turns out - there's nothing substantial published. Why? Well, we know where the influence and interests lie.

avgd 2y ago

> I really hope you’re not thinking about spending less time on-screen. Your sarcastic tone reminds me of a Steve Jobs interview. > In 2010, a New York Times reporter had a conversation that revealed a lot about the life of the founder of Apple. Nick Bilton commented, “Your kids must love the iPad, right?” After the launch of the device. Jobs replied, “They haven't used it. We limit the amount of technology our children use at home. " Yeah, they know what it is that they are doing to the world. And they do not care, profits > humanity.