So, I stopped using my smartphone back in 2012 and I haven't looked back.

Unless you get an even more expensive ruggedized smartphone, they are expensive and fragile. Even if you do get an expensive ruggedized smartphone it will eventually become useless when they upgrade the OS on you and the hardware can't handle it anymore.

Unless you spend a lot of time thinking about how to safeguard it, they are essentially a big threat to your privacy and online account security.

Unless you keep an alternative emergency communications device, if you ever do serious wilderness activities like primitive camping, you'll find that you end up taking your fragile expensive smartphone into the wilderness with you since you realize that not having any ability to attempt to place emergency cell calls is probably foolhardy.

All that being said, the only thing you are getting from the smartphone in exchange for all this headache is an extremely mediocre computer.

I would rather carry a cheap and replaceable non-data-capable cell phone (since having a mobile phone is regrettably expected of everyone nowadays) and replace it when and if it gets destroyed. In the long run putting up with the hassle and cost of a smartphone seems like madness.


The thing is, I was struck how in Shadowrun these days, even Shadowrun Returns, now has the assumption that everyone is running around with a smartphone. (That's pretty much what a commlink is, right?)

I haven't read much recently written science fiction or fantasy stories set in the future, but my sense is that these days everyone is portrayed as having something similar to a smartphone.

But, I don't know...do you really think that people will be running around with smartphones in 10 years? Instead of realizing how ridiculous they are, ditching them, and simply using a real computer when they need to get work done?

Will the future inevitably tend towards greater conspicuous consumption and frivolous consumerism? Short of a global plunge into poverty and shortage, I guess.

I'm really starting to value Frank Herbert's idea of a major rebellion that involves smashing technology as a big future historical event.

That's not really a conceptual concern, only a problem with current implementations. And once you take off the rose-colored glasses, you will realize that early cellphones had very much the same issues.
The "simple" non-smart phones we have today are the result of three decades of evolution, during which many of the same issues plaguing smartphones today were resolved.


Meh, how many people care about that? And if they do, the biggest threat to your privacy is the cell location data, which every phone generates.


That assumes you have a real computer and landline internet. But a good part of the world does not even have effective POTS coverage, let alone anything capable of handling data services. Smartphones are the first opportunity for a lot of people to have internet access, which also translates into access to banking services (if your places doesn't have phone lines, it won't have a bank) and other 20th century amenities.

I guess I usually prefer a late generation model of old tech than something newfangled. As you said the late gen old tech is usually well designed. I mean, who wouldn't swoon with delight to have a Colt Python?

In terms of conceptual issues, I think my biggest problem with how the smartphones are conceptualized is that right now they are focused on stupid things like appearance. I think the coolest application for a smartphone-type device would be in some kind of ruggedized wilderness survival armband. It would have GPS, biomonitoring through contact with your skin, ambient temperature thermometer, barometer, altimeter, wilderness survival library, estimated caloric output, laser range finder, ballistics app for the hunters, and emergency call and messaging capability. It would be pretty big, covering a lot of your forearm, and obviously would have to be waterproof, shockproof, and extreme temperature proof.



I was thinking more about if people simply leave themselves logged into banking sites or other personal services and then their phone gets stolen. In terms of those swipe passwords you can usually see them by the trail in the finger grease on the smartphone screen.



I get that cell service often comes before phone lines, but does 3G really often come before wifi?

So basically, you want a smartphone case to attach to your forearm


You can't share an internet connection on your LAN, wireless or wired, if you don't have an internet connection in the first place...

The difference is that I wouldn't want it to be on the general internet all the time so that it would need to be constantly updated. My thinking is more akin to a Garmin InReach, where it can use satellites to send messages or an SOS but it's not bursting with fragile frivolity like a typical smartphone. The idea is a solid piece of equipment that does certain key predetermined tasks and which will be just as ready to go ten years from now as today.




That makes sense, but then I would argue that being able to type on a keyboard and having a full sized screen is key to doing real work. Back when I had a smartphone, it was one of the ones that had a slide out keyboard, and I felt like one of the main ways it did have utility was by allowing me to type out very long text messages better than contemporary models with a touchscreen and autocomplete that is like having your shoelaces tied together. So, I would argue that if you're talking about giving people access to essential information services, what they need is a laptop that comes with real productivity software, a real screen, and a real keyboard that can connect to 3G. Otherwise it's just kind of like a time-wasting machine that draws you in but prevents you from getting anything done of real importance.

I dont think we will see this technology go away because you are missing out on a major part of the attractiveness of it: Portability.
The game boy when it came had nothing to put against computers, arcades or heck even the NES, but guess what? it was portable (kind of, more so than any other handheld gaming device by that point)
I see a future where I can sit in a park holding an AR conference with a couple of friends while playing virtual chess with the old man down the block all while enjoying a beautiful sunset over the harbour. But thats just me

I just got a new "phone", GeryMotion android phone emulator so I can play Fallout Shelter. It just about reaches the perfect spot for me. The only exception is should I need to contact someone during an emergency. What I'd really like is an emergency wind-up cellphone (mostly for, coincidentally, when I'm camping).

But yes, I expect in another twenty years, smart phones will be small, cheap, and effective enough that even people like me will have one. It's cheap enough I don't mind losing it, and useful enough that, even if I only ever use it for emergency phone calls and avoiding traffic, it's still more useful than not having it. And because of the value of marketing data, companies will make sure as much is integrated (and convenient) with it as posible.

Smartphones the way they are now probably won't stand the test of time, but the concept of always having access to online data and computing power near/on/inside us probably will.

First of all, you don't need a large screen or "real productivity software" to profit from internet access.
If people in "unbanked" countries get access to financial services, that counts as doing something of real importance to me (and while mobile banking isn't the pinnacle of security, it's ironically an average 1.47 gazillion times safer than the 'murican system of magnetic strips that can be copied with a tape machine and a signature that is plainly visible at the back of the card).
If some backwater place suddenly has access to google or Wikipedia, that definitely gets stuff of real importance done.
If motorcycle cabbies use Whatsapp to coordinate their service...


Also, there is the cost factor: How does an ordinary phone plus a laptop with 3G hold up against a device that does both?

The weaknesses of smartphones are trying to do everything, and keep a small enough form-factor to be mobile. A specialized device will either be better or cheaper than a generalist. A larger device will be cheaper or better than a smaller device.

A feature-phone will have better battery life and less cost, and may have a better antenna (it's got the space). A camera will take better pictures. A desktop computer (or even laptop) has a better keyboard, monitor, graphics, storage, and cpu. Are any of those necessary? Depends on the person and what they need. A smartphone is "good enough" at a lot of things and isn't hugely more expensive (cheaper than the cost of a phone, computer, and camera), but cost and the compromises will keep them from completely replacing specialized devices.

Smartphones are just a means to an end. That 'end' being connectivity.

When someone successfully markets a means of connectivity more convienent and/or attractive than a smartphone, you'll see a change.

Possibly wearable computing, with some sort of hands free control. Having to hold stuff is like, so 2015, man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMy1zO8m8sM


–k

I see problems with wearable computing, though.

1: You can't manipulate it with both, or either, of your hands, unless you do something awkward like mount it to your chest.
2: You'd have to have some kind of peripheral earpiece, or else have all your calls on speaker.
3: Hope you didn't do the laundry whilst dead tired. Granted that this can happen with a handset, to, but you're less likely to leave your phone in a pocket and not realize it, as opposed to taking it off to charge it, as you are to leave a wearable device on your clothes.

Honestly, until the advent of some kind of reliable augmented reality display, I don't see wearable computing taking off as more than a novelty, or a peripheral/additional device to your main device.