Having better ux than windows mobile doesn’t mean that it makes history. It is just a bit better version of a cell phone. The main goal of this device was to ease content (mostly paid garbage or hidden ads) consumption.
If you exclude everything that is not needed to you specifically, you will find that there is just gps + maps, cell-phone, mp3 player and camera.
And all of these features working worse than the same via dedicated devices.
Is it a revolution we deserve to combine good features and make them work worse?
The thing is that combining those dedicated devices makes for a device that you can carry in your pocket all the time. It’s simply not feasible to carry a dedicated camera, web browser, GPS/Maps unit, cell phone, music player, and so on. But when they’re all packed into one unit, they can be easily carried. The different pieces of functionality can also compliment each other so much more easily as apps.
Mobile banking by photographing checks
Check out a bike with a companion app and a QR code
Video conferencing using the built in camera and microphones
Morning alarm that also reads the headlines.
All this would require a purpose built device otherwise. By making it an app, it’s just a few bytes on the internal storage.
Check out a bike with a companion app and a QR code
Video conferencing using the built in camera and microphones
Morning alarm that also reads the headlines.
Sounds like a petty bourgeoisie pleasures, ie nothing really important for life
and as for combining things in one device, I agree, it happened, but all this works worse than dedicated devices. If you really need gps for real stuff you would better use professional device, if you need camera not just for fun, you would prefer to use normal camera etc…
But that’s the thing, smartphones make them less of a “petty bourgeoisie pleasure”. It’s not uncommon for a person of quite modest means to have a smartphone. That opens up all sorts of possibilities: payments, formal banking, messaging, job connections.
Also, smartphones can provide a benefit that dedicated devices don’t: they are there all the time. We never would have seen justice for George Floyd if bystanders hadn’t provided multiple videos, and the same with Ahmed Avery. The often shocking police tactics in putting down protests would have gone undocumented. This extends into professional journalism as well, with the non-photographer reporters getting some training on how to use their smartphones to get quick photos of moments that would have been lost before because there wasn’t a photographer available. And despite what you say, the camera can often produce a perfectly acceptable result.
If you really need gps for real stuff…
Wait… real stuff like… getting somewhere??? Turns out phones are plenty good at that.
Having better ux than windows mobile doesn’t mean that it makes history. It is just a bit better version of a cell phone. The main goal of this device was to ease content (mostly paid garbage or hidden ads) consumption.
If you exclude everything that is not needed to you specifically, you will find that there is just gps + maps, cell-phone, mp3 player and camera. And all of these features working worse than the same via dedicated devices.
Is it a revolution we deserve to combine good features and make them work worse?
Removed by mod
The thing is that combining those dedicated devices makes for a device that you can carry in your pocket all the time. It’s simply not feasible to carry a dedicated camera, web browser, GPS/Maps unit, cell phone, music player, and so on. But when they’re all packed into one unit, they can be easily carried. The different pieces of functionality can also compliment each other so much more easily as apps.
All this would require a purpose built device otherwise. By making it an app, it’s just a few bytes on the internal storage.
Sounds like a petty bourgeoisie pleasures, ie nothing really important for life
and as for combining things in one device, I agree, it happened, but all this works worse than dedicated devices. If you really need gps for real stuff you would better use professional device, if you need camera not just for fun, you would prefer to use normal camera etc…
But that’s the thing, smartphones make them less of a “petty bourgeoisie pleasure”. It’s not uncommon for a person of quite modest means to have a smartphone. That opens up all sorts of possibilities: payments, formal banking, messaging, job connections.
Also, smartphones can provide a benefit that dedicated devices don’t: they are there all the time. We never would have seen justice for George Floyd if bystanders hadn’t provided multiple videos, and the same with Ahmed Avery. The often shocking police tactics in putting down protests would have gone undocumented. This extends into professional journalism as well, with the non-photographer reporters getting some training on how to use their smartphones to get quick photos of moments that would have been lost before because there wasn’t a photographer available. And despite what you say, the camera can often produce a perfectly acceptable result.
Wait… real stuff like… getting somewhere??? Turns out phones are plenty good at that.