I agree with your point, although I think you miss the author's point slightly. In our personal lives, the choice to buy the cheap analog version of things is s

I agree with your point, although I think you miss the author's point slightly. In our personal lives, the choice to buy the cheap analog version of things is still an option, while those of us with access to technology can leverage it in a way that makes our lives easier. This "widens the gap" between the haves and have-nots. At the same time, as technology advances, tools and services that the poor relied on (e.g. payphones, print newspapers, and coin-operated parking meters) are declining in availability. There is an ever-increasing pressure on people to adopt new technology, and those who can't afford to must find ways to work around these limits. In a way, we already live in the world described in the article. Imagine the impact on cars when they first arrived. "The wealthy can afford to take jobs farther away, while the poor are limited to work only as far as they can walk!" Having the perspective of a century of progress, I can tell you the impact, and I doubt many would argue that automobiles are a net loss to society. Unfortunately it sometimes seems like the only equitable solution is to restrict the use of technology so that those without it are not too disadvantaged (i.e. "If we limit cars to walking speed, everyone will have the same job opportunities").