I would hope that we can agree that at some point a qualitative and privileged "good enough" metric applies here? Is it reasonable that a photographer would pr

I would hope that we can agree that at some point a qualitative and privileged "good enough" metric applies here? Is it reasonable that a photographer would prefer a cellular phone camera over a focused device? Or a medical imager? Or a security system designer? Or an astronomer? Or an extreme sports enthusiast? The point stands that the technology diverges to meet contextual needs. Following this reasoning, we can wager on two futures. One where we use less devices and less things. Or one where we use more specific devices that meet contextual needs more acutely. I comfortably accept the latter. Design exists in a multi-dimensional realm where some design decisions may inherently pull away from others. Unless someone wants to believe in a car that seats six, goes from zero to sixty in four seconds, has a child carrier area, ravages off-road snow conditions, and offers an upgrade to carry six sheets of plywood. Bill Buxton's analysis of wooden Inuit coastal maps is fabulous, and I would encourage reading his piece if you can find it.