zlacker

>>headal+(OP)
I can't stop thinking that we're circling back to how "tech" was before when it was limited because it fits our needs better. Slower, some complexity, less possibilities at every time.

>>agumon+1P
Yes I think the smartphone is an instance of "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.", when tech had higher constraints there was more thought put into determining what was essential.

When I want to put on headphones to do chores around the house I pick up my 2006-era iPod. No wireless pairing to screw with, no distracting notifications, just a library of music I've already listened to a hundred times so I can just think, which of these albums am I in the mood for, and choose. The interface is simple to navigate because there's just not much to navigate, and IMO that goes a long way to have a predictable experience that never introduces frustration.

>>jazzyj+wS
But the universality of phones also made them great tools. Maps, calls, messages all can be enormously beneficial.

The problem comes when they are both a tool and an entertainment device, as they are inseparably linked together.

>>consta+Bb1
I think the universality hides the fact that these are not really made to stay in the flow of life but to be cute and shiny in themselves, capturing your attention instead of being the shortest path on providing what you need to keep going. Then there's the instability of platform (plethora of messaging apps..), the usual ad infestation (google maps now shows a lot of local shop whether you asked for it or not) etc etc. Old devices had to be tailored and became a side element in your life.