Dumb Phone(joindiaspora.com)
joindiaspora.com
Dumb Phone
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/6ce99700e3090139df2b002590d8e506
156 comments
The larger thrust of my essay is that simple feature checklist marketing and product specification fails to consider a larger ecosystem and workflow of usage. The fact that much of the intelligence of the system was "women's work" (e.g., provided by secretarial and switchboard staff), made it all the more invisible.
Regarding the limitations of the post-1980s "smart phone" ecosystem (both desk and mobile devices), the limitations and UI/UX failures:
1. Apply to a number of different devices. Not merely flagship smartphones, but several other variations on featureful telephony equipment, including a number of generations of office phone systems (typically Rolm desksets), VOIP systems, and consumer landline / wireless handsets, etc., with which I've had direct experience. These tend to exhibit a range of UI/UX failures, to a greater or lesser extent.
2. The opening quote was from an aquaintance, who's more than slightly technologically literate.
3. The statement isn't absolute, but conditional. Frequently implies "not always".
Comments so far seem to miss both the focus on overall workflow, and the nuance on feature completeness and/or suitability.
Perhaps I'm a less effective communicator than I'd hoped.
Perhaps the technological blinders are more formidable than I'd feared.
Regarding the limitations of the post-1980s "smart phone" ecosystem (both desk and mobile devices), the limitations and UI/UX failures:
1. Apply to a number of different devices. Not merely flagship smartphones, but several other variations on featureful telephony equipment, including a number of generations of office phone systems (typically Rolm desksets), VOIP systems, and consumer landline / wireless handsets, etc., with which I've had direct experience. These tend to exhibit a range of UI/UX failures, to a greater or lesser extent.
2. The opening quote was from an aquaintance, who's more than slightly technologically literate.
3. The statement isn't absolute, but conditional. Frequently implies "not always".
Comments so far seem to miss both the focus on overall workflow, and the nuance on feature completeness and/or suitability.
Perhaps I'm a less effective communicator than I'd hoped.
Perhaps the technological blinders are more formidable than I'd feared.
It's pretty obvious that most poster here don't understand and don't want to understand your article. Most of them are invested in software. Pretty bad software, probably. It seems the only way they can feel good about what they use or develop (often not by any real choice) is by constructing an imaginary past where everything was absolutely awful and comparing the current tools to such imaginary past. Anything that undermines that meta-narrative must be immediately responded to with shallow off-point comments to reduce the cognitive dissonance.
Thanks.
Part of the entire project is to see what the response is, and how it responds (if at all) to different communications methods.
Challenging assumptions, let alone slaying sacred cows, is a fraught task.
And to correct a misapprehension: it's not that the 1970s-era office phone ecosystem was better. It's that it was different than the set of affordances and features of present comms devices and systems embody and the underlying design understanding evidences.
In the earlier Reddit piece the article references, the immediately preceeding concept addressed was Chesterton's Fence. Many here are eager to move it.
Part of the entire project is to see what the response is, and how it responds (if at all) to different communications methods.
Challenging assumptions, let alone slaying sacred cows, is a fraught task.
And to correct a misapprehension: it's not that the 1970s-era office phone ecosystem was better. It's that it was different than the set of affordances and features of present comms devices and systems embody and the underlying design understanding evidences.
In the earlier Reddit piece the article references, the immediately preceeding concept addressed was Chesterton's Fence. Many here are eager to move it.
> I don't understand the first point because I can access my calendar, email, contact, etc all during a call on my phone without problem (Android 10).
This might be a weird question but are you always connected to WiFi?
This might be a weird question but are you always connected to WiFi?
When I'm not, I likely have mobile data service, and even if I don't, my calendar and contacts are available offline and sync once I'm online. Email won't be accessible, but I can draft one and set a calendar reminder to send it later.
Not familiar with any issues with using data while on a call as some comments have alluded to. I have Google Fi as a provider and haven't experienced any issues with them, or Verizon before.
Not familiar with any issues with using data while on a call as some comments have alluded to. I have Google Fi as a provider and haven't experienced any issues with them, or Verizon before.
I think you're alluding to the Verizon (IIRC) problem of data and voice access not working simultaneously. So on a call, you could use the device locally but not access anything via data (aside from being on wifi). This was unique to them and carriers using similar technology, since I don't use them I don't know if it's still an issue (but suspect not).
If you have VoLTE you can do data and voice at the same time. But many networks and phones don't have that yet
> I don't understand the first point because I can access my calendar, email, contact, etc all during a call on my phone without problem (Android 10).
Not all phones could. Verizon in particular had a lot of phones in the previous decade which couldn't access voice and data services at the same time.
Not all phones could. Verizon in particular had a lot of phones in the previous decade which couldn't access voice and data services at the same time.
That is problem of low end GSM modules.
It is a problem with CDMA that Verizon and Sprint use. CDMA can't do voice and data at the same time. Both Verizon and Sprint have mostly migrated to LTE and VoLTE and are retiring their CDMA networks next year.
It's a poor person's problem, doesn't apply here...right?
The frequency with which I need my email and a notebook while I'm on the phone makes integrated devices foolish.
If that's actually a common problem for this person then they should start carrying a bluetooth headset. Personally I always have my bluetooth earbuds in my pocket so I'll pop one of them in if a phone conversation lasts more than a minute. The complaint is incredibly silly because no one is stopping you from carrying your phone and a headset and a notepad and all the other things or even a second phone. You can totally go back to doing the way it used to be done. This is like whining that your evening walks are ruined because the light on your phone isn't as good as the flashlight you used to carry. If you don't like it then use the damn flashlight instead.
If that's actually a common problem for this person then they should start carrying a bluetooth headset. Personally I always have my bluetooth earbuds in my pocket so I'll pop one of them in if a phone conversation lasts more than a minute. The complaint is incredibly silly because no one is stopping you from carrying your phone and a headset and a notepad and all the other things or even a second phone. You can totally go back to doing the way it used to be done. This is like whining that your evening walks are ruined because the light on your phone isn't as good as the flashlight you used to carry. If you don't like it then use the damn flashlight instead.
> A modern business, software, or smartphone system may offer some, or even all, of these functions, but frequently:
> They aren’t available whilst a call is in process
> They have vastly less capability or flexibility than the systems they replaced
What function isn't available during a call on a smartphone? Playing music?
And when the author says "capability or flexibility", this is what the author is comparing a smart phone with:
> The user
> The phone itself
> A Rolodex or addressbook / contacts list
> The local PBX – the business’s dedicated internal phone switch.
> A secretary or switchboard operator, serving also as a message-taking (voice-to-text), screening, redirect, directory, interactive voice response, and/or calendaring service
> A desk calendar
> A phone book
> A diary or organiser
> Scratch paper
Yes, having a dedicated secretary is more flexible and capable than a smartphone. But modern businesses still have secretaries don't they? I don't understand how this is a viable comparison.
---
In 2021, a functional phone is no longer functional for my use. It hasn't been so for years. My university account required a Duo app (2 factor) to login. My family relies on chat programs to talk, because we live in different countries and SMS is expensive. And so many other things......
I know that some people find themselves wasting time on smart phones. But others have been several times more productive on smart phones. It all comes down to choosing what works best for you, and how you use the device.
(Edit: format)
> They aren’t available whilst a call is in process
> They have vastly less capability or flexibility than the systems they replaced
What function isn't available during a call on a smartphone? Playing music?
And when the author says "capability or flexibility", this is what the author is comparing a smart phone with:
> The user
> The phone itself
> A Rolodex or addressbook / contacts list
> The local PBX – the business’s dedicated internal phone switch.
> A secretary or switchboard operator, serving also as a message-taking (voice-to-text), screening, redirect, directory, interactive voice response, and/or calendaring service
> A desk calendar
> A phone book
> A diary or organiser
> Scratch paper
Yes, having a dedicated secretary is more flexible and capable than a smartphone. But modern businesses still have secretaries don't they? I don't understand how this is a viable comparison.
---
In 2021, a functional phone is no longer functional for my use. It hasn't been so for years. My university account required a Duo app (2 factor) to login. My family relies on chat programs to talk, because we live in different countries and SMS is expensive. And so many other things......
I know that some people find themselves wasting time on smart phones. But others have been several times more productive on smart phones. It all comes down to choosing what works best for you, and how you use the device.
(Edit: format)
To me it's a pain while I'm on a call to pull the phone from my face, switch apps to contacts, read or otherwise ingest the data, then put my face back to the phone to relay what I learned.
Compared holding the phone with one hand and flipping through an address book with the other it's much less flexible to me.
Compared holding the phone with one hand and flipping through an address book with the other it's much less flexible to me.
> Compared holding the phone with one hand and flipping through an address book with the other it's much less flexible to me
My point was that we didn't replace address books with just smartphones. As address books disappeared from our desks, computers showed up. Emails showed up. It was a strange comparison between a single phone and a whole ecosystem of doing business.
"I'll send/email/fax all the information to you in a second." largely replaced "I'm going to read this to you from this piece of paper." especially in a business setting. More efficient, formal, traceable methods have been invented and adopted.
My point was that we didn't replace address books with just smartphones. As address books disappeared from our desks, computers showed up. Emails showed up. It was a strange comparison between a single phone and a whole ecosystem of doing business.
"I'll send/email/fax all the information to you in a second." largely replaced "I'm going to read this to you from this piece of paper." especially in a business setting. More efficient, formal, traceable methods have been invented and adopted.
Headphones. Often there is a pair in the box with a mic, if not even if there is no headphone jack a pair of okay Bluetooth buds are $30. Except for the shortest of calls it's easier than holding the phone to your face. Then you can easily do whatever on the phone.
Am I the only one who typically just uses speakerphone at a low volume? Most calls I receive are at home, and I hate holding my phone to my head anyways. That or a headset solves the issue...
I sometimes do, but it’s because smart phones are very poor phones. They are heavy, weirdly shaped, and the microphones don’t line up with your mouth because the phones have gotten too large. The Ux for making calls is bad too, I miss land lines but don’t want to pay for both land and cellular when a land line is so expensive
Funny. Over here it's almost impossible to get internet without included phone service. The ISP's, Cable-Co's and Telcos all try to bundle Voice, TV and Net into one big fat offer.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_play_(telecommunication...
That is for broadband, cable, fibre. Mobile is an additional thing, not standalone.
Besides that you can always opt for VOIP via some SIP-service
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol
register that number whereever you want to,
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIP_provider
and pipe that into a
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoIP_phone
by whichever means. (second mobile/cell for instance)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_play_(telecommunication...
That is for broadband, cable, fibre. Mobile is an additional thing, not standalone.
Besides that you can always opt for VOIP via some SIP-service
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol
register that number whereever you want to,
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIP_provider
and pipe that into a
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoIP_phone
by whichever means. (second mobile/cell for instance)
I think that a significant part of the complaint from the OP goes away when you use a method that doesn’t involve holding the phone to your face. I use headphones, but if you’re alone at home speakerphone might also be an option.
It doesn't. Just because you technically can access some of the phone's features while on speakers/headset, doesn't mean it's in any way nice or convenient. Phone UX just sucks in general, and doubly so when during a call - for some reason, in my experience even flagship Androids start to noticeably lag when you try to multi-task while calling.
Funny, I almost never have my phone against my ear. At home, I put calls on speaker and in public I typically use headphones
>But modern businesses still have secretaries don't they
Well, they have admins/assistants for seniorish execs but, no, they mostly don't even have a shared admin for anyone below that level
Well, they have admins/assistants for seniorish execs but, no, they mostly don't even have a shared admin for anyone below that level
From a follow-up comment to the original essay:
I strongly suspect that much of the reason for the lack of awareness and consideration of these methods, tools, and concepts is that this was "secretarial work", that is, women's work. It was conceived of specifically to free the minds of executives and administrators from having to deal with these problems. Further, as secretarial and administrative positions were eliminated from organisation, the knowledge, context, and even the culture in which they were embodied, was lost.
I strongly suspect that much of the reason for the lack of awareness and consideration of these methods, tools, and concepts is that this was "secretarial work", that is, women's work. It was conceived of specifically to free the minds of executives and administrators from having to deal with these problems. Further, as secretarial and administrative positions were eliminated from organisation, the knowledge, context, and even the culture in which they were embodied, was lost.
For a technologist, I'm definitely fairly anti-technology. The height of human invention was the written word. And pencil and paper is still impossible to beat. Unless you're decked out with a keyboard, no smart device is going to beat it. Even then, markup is really hard. You'll then need a stylus, and some great software to match what you had at the start with pencil and paper. And with the paper I can rip the page out and hand it to someone. Or I could scan it. Whatever, pretty flexible. That pretty much amounts to a joke that a comedian will be telling for at least another century.
I use an iPhone 12 mini, but I'm not a heavy user of a phone. As a Xennial, I lived through and was cognizant the last 20 years of the analog age, roughly capping off with the Blackberry at the end of the millennium (and took a few years to take off).
The smart devices haven't really helped anything. Laptops and desktops have. Smart devices really were just tethers for you to your work/life/consumer distractions. It has its uses, and that's why I carry mine, but primarily just basic communication is why I keep it. I can live without the secure Wake On Lan to my desktop, internet banking and whatever relatively useless features it has.
Pencil, paper, laptop. Still can't beat it, smart devices are largely just pieces of trash or new ball and chain at worst.
I use an iPhone 12 mini, but I'm not a heavy user of a phone. As a Xennial, I lived through and was cognizant the last 20 years of the analog age, roughly capping off with the Blackberry at the end of the millennium (and took a few years to take off).
The smart devices haven't really helped anything. Laptops and desktops have. Smart devices really were just tethers for you to your work/life/consumer distractions. It has its uses, and that's why I carry mine, but primarily just basic communication is why I keep it. I can live without the secure Wake On Lan to my desktop, internet banking and whatever relatively useless features it has.
Pencil, paper, laptop. Still can't beat it, smart devices are largely just pieces of trash or new ball and chain at worst.
> For a technologist, I'm definitely fairly anti-technology.
Same here. I have built many cellular networks from the ground up in the early 90's, then I worked in R&D for cellular devices and today I do various cloud things. When I am not at work, I seldom carry a phone, nor even mess around with technology. (Other than the random hobbyist project I'll mess around with on the weekends every now and then).
I find it fascinating when I am out and about, only to watch people living 18 inches in front of their nose, while there is a great big world of activity all around them, and they are not even aware.
Same here. I have built many cellular networks from the ground up in the early 90's, then I worked in R&D for cellular devices and today I do various cloud things. When I am not at work, I seldom carry a phone, nor even mess around with technology. (Other than the random hobbyist project I'll mess around with on the weekends every now and then).
I find it fascinating when I am out and about, only to watch people living 18 inches in front of their nose, while there is a great big world of activity all around them, and they are not even aware.
Slightly off topic, but I barely use my phone as a phone. I think it's dumb to call them phones, it an artifact of their origin.
I could just as well not have any phone functionality if it has internet.
At this point I even don't pick up calls from numbers that I don't recognize or weren't scheduled beforehand.
It's now rude to just call someone on the phone without asking permission first.
It's the equivalent of dropping unannounced at their place.
I could just as well not have any phone functionality if it has internet.
At this point I even don't pick up calls from numbers that I don't recognize or weren't scheduled beforehand.
It's now rude to just call someone on the phone without asking permission first.
It's the equivalent of dropping unannounced at their place.
“It's the equivalent of dropping unannounced at their place”
Which used to be a normal thing - at least where I live and especially if you were young. At the same time, politely telling someone you’re busy, it’s not a good time, etc was also acceptable and normal.
Which used to be a normal thing - at least where I live and especially if you were young. At the same time, politely telling someone you’re busy, it’s not a good time, etc was also acceptable and normal.
Yeah, but for close friends and family only. If I'm being honest, it was mostly tolerated rather than encouraged. Once everyone had phones, you called before dropping.
Now everyone has some form of async communication, so you use that instead, before calling.
The issue is imposing yourself on somebody else's attention.
The issue is imposing yourself on somebody else's attention.
Key statement there is 'used to be'. Now that phones are ubiquitous, it makes no sense to just go over someone's place or even call them, when you can just send a text that lets someone respond asynchronously. I also just have a policy of not picking up calls from unknown numbers except if they leave a voicemail or call several times.
Most people that I know only use calls for time sensitive/urgent needs. Most other things, aside from chatting with family etc, are really best handled with a text. For whatever reason the culture around phones has shifted to "don't force people to drop whatever they're doing and respond to a call unless it is actually necessary".
Most people that I know only use calls for time sensitive/urgent needs. Most other things, aside from chatting with family etc, are really best handled with a text. For whatever reason the culture around phones has shifted to "don't force people to drop whatever they're doing and respond to a call unless it is actually necessary".
And even then I'd argue kick off the urgent communication need with a text. They can call back if they realize synchronous communication is needed for the circumstance. They are more likely to receive the text than a phone call. If they are in a meeting or whatever, they would likely let the call go to voicemail, but a text they can discretely read.
It depends on the other party's phone habits. We don't all carry them everywhere or check them constantly.
If you call me, I'll probably hear the phone ring, and can either answer it or check for a message, whereas if you send me a text, there's a decent chance I won't even notice its existence for some hours. Better hope that "urgent communication need" isn't too urgent...
If you call me, I'll probably hear the phone ring, and can either answer it or check for a message, whereas if you send me a text, there's a decent chance I won't even notice its existence for some hours. Better hope that "urgent communication need" isn't too urgent...
What I do is call if it's urgent and time sensitive (SO is out shopping and I need to add something to the list). If no response and more urgent (actual emergency or needs immediate attention and is high priority), I call again. If not an emergency, I send a text with the necessary information and they can call back or respond via text.
Seems to work out well and fairly straightforward, I'd imagine I'm not the only one that follows this flow.
Seems to work out well and fairly straightforward, I'd imagine I'm not the only one that follows this flow.
> Most people that I know only use calls for time sensitive/urgent needs. Most other things, aside from chatting with family etc, are really best handled with a text. For whatever reason the culture around phones has shifted to "don't force people to drop whatever they're doing and respond to a call unless it is actually necessary".
Anyone feel like businesses small and large aren’t getting this? If I need a plumber or want to apply for a mortgage the first step is always a phone call. I don’t get it.
I’ve tried texting local businesses but it only occasionally works.
Anyone feel like businesses small and large aren’t getting this? If I need a plumber or want to apply for a mortgage the first step is always a phone call. I don’t get it.
I’ve tried texting local businesses but it only occasionally works.
In Central America most businesses have switched to WhatsApp or Facebook messenger. They still keep the normal phones though. Texting wouldn't work here though.
At first it was only small businesses like the nearby cafeteria sending the lunch menu, then it was fast food deliveries, some banks. Last year some state institutions made the switch.
I'm not sure about a mortgage, since that requires more paperwork. But most of a car insurance, car loan, personal loan, new internet phone line, can be done via WhatsApp.
The local digital signature law still doesn't work though, so at certain point of the process, the company sends an official or someone from a private post company to get the real signatures on paper and confirm that the ID card matches the application.
At first it was only small businesses like the nearby cafeteria sending the lunch menu, then it was fast food deliveries, some banks. Last year some state institutions made the switch.
I'm not sure about a mortgage, since that requires more paperwork. But most of a car insurance, car loan, personal loan, new internet phone line, can be done via WhatsApp.
The local digital signature law still doesn't work though, so at certain point of the process, the company sends an official or someone from a private post company to get the real signatures on paper and confirm that the ID card matches the application.
[deleted]
> It's now rude to just call someone on the phone without asking permission first.
I've literally never heard of this. So much of my day-to-day work and personal communication would pretty much never happen if I had to ask for permission every time before I called someone. Is it a millennial thing?
Phones (telephones, that is) and phone numbers are exactly for spontaneous voice communication. If someone doesn't want to be called out of the blue, they can choose to not give their number out to people. Or for texting say, hey, here's my number but I'm so busy that texting is usually better for me. And with today's smartphones that tell you who is calling (or at least, whether or not it's someone you know), it's _way_ easier to decide whether or not to answer a call than it was two or three decades ago where the phone just rang and that was all you got.
I've literally never heard of this. So much of my day-to-day work and personal communication would pretty much never happen if I had to ask for permission every time before I called someone. Is it a millennial thing?
Phones (telephones, that is) and phone numbers are exactly for spontaneous voice communication. If someone doesn't want to be called out of the blue, they can choose to not give their number out to people. Or for texting say, hey, here's my number but I'm so busy that texting is usually better for me. And with today's smartphones that tell you who is calling (or at least, whether or not it's someone you know), it's _way_ easier to decide whether or not to answer a call than it was two or three decades ago where the phone just rang and that was all you got.
I hate to tell you, but you may be one of those people we wish just texted every time we have to stop what we are doing and pick up a call.
99% of the time it could be handled better via a text or email, which allows both parties to answer when they can.
It is infuriating when I have to spend 30 minutes of my day trying to phone people back and getting voice mail so that they can tell me something that was best put in a simple text.
99% of the time it could be handled better via a text or email, which allows both parties to answer when they can.
It is infuriating when I have to spend 30 minutes of my day trying to phone people back and getting voice mail so that they can tell me something that was best put in a simple text.
Different solutions for different situations and people.
I don't see the 99%, more frequently it's meetings that can be replaced by emails. Some of my customers are fine sending an email or creating a ticket, and are able to tell me in writing what they want. Others, I'd say around half, can't clearly tell me what they want. Maybe they don't know, or they don't fully understand the problem
Either you send a few emails back and forth for a few days, trying to figure out what people want, wasting hours. Instead you can call the same people, and in less than 30 minutes have the job clearly defined. Then you still need to follow up via an email, so you have the clients OK in writing.
It's not a generational thing, it's down to how different people best communicate, and what situation you're currently facing. The clean and clear dismissal of phone call as a means of communication isn't productive. My dismissal of texts in professional settings might also not be super productive, but that's would mean that I have to give out my cellphone number to clients, and that's not really happening.
I don't see the 99%, more frequently it's meetings that can be replaced by emails. Some of my customers are fine sending an email or creating a ticket, and are able to tell me in writing what they want. Others, I'd say around half, can't clearly tell me what they want. Maybe they don't know, or they don't fully understand the problem
Either you send a few emails back and forth for a few days, trying to figure out what people want, wasting hours. Instead you can call the same people, and in less than 30 minutes have the job clearly defined. Then you still need to follow up via an email, so you have the clients OK in writing.
It's not a generational thing, it's down to how different people best communicate, and what situation you're currently facing. The clean and clear dismissal of phone call as a means of communication isn't productive. My dismissal of texts in professional settings might also not be super productive, but that's would mean that I have to give out my cellphone number to clients, and that's not really happening.
>> I hate to tell you, but you may be one of those people we wish just texted every time we have to stop what we are doing and pick up a call.
>> 99% of the time it could be handled better via a text or email, which allows both parties to answer when they can.
I think it depends very much on your relationship with the person with whom you are communicating and the conversation itself.
The "bandwidth" of communication of a voice call is much higher than a text or email because of voice inflection, voice tone, and other audible factors.
For example, you might be able to immediately tell that the person you called is sick and adjust your plans or request, but a text or email would not tell you that.
A voice call also allows for quick clarifications that could take several rounds of texts or emails. This means that a 30 second phone call could be faster than several rounds of texts or emails spaced over several hours.
A voice call is also better for more sensitive or urgent communication. Urgent or sensitive news conveyed over text or email can feel impersonal or even uncaring.
For asynchronous one-way messages, I agree that texts or emails are better since they do not interfere and allow each side to handle responses asynchronously.
>> It is infuriating when I have to spend 30 minutes of my day trying to phone people back and getting voice mail so that they can tell me something that was best put in a simple text.
I completely agree. I HATE voice mail and have actually turned it off. People who know me and need a voice call can call back or try reaching me by text or email.
>> 99% of the time it could be handled better via a text or email, which allows both parties to answer when they can.
I think it depends very much on your relationship with the person with whom you are communicating and the conversation itself.
The "bandwidth" of communication of a voice call is much higher than a text or email because of voice inflection, voice tone, and other audible factors.
For example, you might be able to immediately tell that the person you called is sick and adjust your plans or request, but a text or email would not tell you that.
A voice call also allows for quick clarifications that could take several rounds of texts or emails. This means that a 30 second phone call could be faster than several rounds of texts or emails spaced over several hours.
A voice call is also better for more sensitive or urgent communication. Urgent or sensitive news conveyed over text or email can feel impersonal or even uncaring.
For asynchronous one-way messages, I agree that texts or emails are better since they do not interfere and allow each side to handle responses asynchronously.
>> It is infuriating when I have to spend 30 minutes of my day trying to phone people back and getting voice mail so that they can tell me something that was best put in a simple text.
I completely agree. I HATE voice mail and have actually turned it off. People who know me and need a voice call can call back or try reaching me by text or email.
> I completely agree. I HATE voice mail and have actually turned it off. People who know me and need a voice call can call back or try reaching me by text or email.
Yeah... You're the kind of person people wish would just text us.
Yeah... You're the kind of person people wish would just text us.
Honest question:
Would you prefer to receive bad news by voice call or by text message?
Personally, I would prefer to receive bad news by voice call, but I am curious about what others prefer and why.
Would you prefer to receive bad news by voice call or by text message?
Personally, I would prefer to receive bad news by voice call, but I am curious about what others prefer and why.
> Is it a millennial thing?
It may be more of a millennial thing but I've heard this from both younger (Gen Z) and older (Gen X) people as well. It does depend on the type of call. If I run a business then I'm not expecting my vendors/clients to pre-schedule a call but if a friend calls I assume it's an emergency or extremely time-sensitive. I regularly send and receive "Are you free to talk?" SMS/iMessage/Discord/etc messages and only initiate calls without first asking if it's something that just can't wait (or in the case where we are about to meet up, like calling to say I'm almost there or calling to find someone at an event we are both attending). The only exception to this "rule" is my parents who regularly call me out of the blue (I get a text ~20% of the time max to ask if I'm free).
It may be more of a millennial thing but I've heard this from both younger (Gen Z) and older (Gen X) people as well. It does depend on the type of call. If I run a business then I'm not expecting my vendors/clients to pre-schedule a call but if a friend calls I assume it's an emergency or extremely time-sensitive. I regularly send and receive "Are you free to talk?" SMS/iMessage/Discord/etc messages and only initiate calls without first asking if it's something that just can't wait (or in the case where we are about to meet up, like calling to say I'm almost there or calling to find someone at an event we are both attending). The only exception to this "rule" is my parents who regularly call me out of the blue (I get a text ~20% of the time max to ask if I'm free).
> Is it a millennial thing?
"Elder millennial" here. Didn't have a cell phone until college, and then it was a dumb phone.
Phone calls are my least favorite form of communication. Oddly enough, I'm fine with them in a business context, but personal? Don't call me unless someone's dying or I'm expecting a call from you. I will be annoyed otherwise. Either the person you're calling is ignoring all calls (phone silent and out of sight), or you're about to set off a blaring DEAL WITH THIS RIGHT THIS SECOND, DROP WHAT YOU'RE DOING alarm for them (even if it's on vibrate, still, that's what it is). It's like yelling "I need your attention this second!". So it should be important enough to warrant abruptly interrupting someone who may be in the middle of who-knows-what.
I felt very differently about this before cell phones. Yay! Someone called me! Now it's like, damnit, why are you being such a jerk by calling me when there's not something super-important and urgent going on? I think part of it's that home phones couldn't interrupt you everywhere at all times. Mostly just indoors, in your house.
"Elder millennial" here. Didn't have a cell phone until college, and then it was a dumb phone.
Phone calls are my least favorite form of communication. Oddly enough, I'm fine with them in a business context, but personal? Don't call me unless someone's dying or I'm expecting a call from you. I will be annoyed otherwise. Either the person you're calling is ignoring all calls (phone silent and out of sight), or you're about to set off a blaring DEAL WITH THIS RIGHT THIS SECOND, DROP WHAT YOU'RE DOING alarm for them (even if it's on vibrate, still, that's what it is). It's like yelling "I need your attention this second!". So it should be important enough to warrant abruptly interrupting someone who may be in the middle of who-knows-what.
I felt very differently about this before cell phones. Yay! Someone called me! Now it's like, damnit, why are you being such a jerk by calling me when there's not something super-important and urgent going on? I think part of it's that home phones couldn't interrupt you everywhere at all times. Mostly just indoors, in your house.
> they can choose to not give their number out to people
I assure you, I did not give my number (or email) to the spammers who contact me multiple times a day.
I'm sure they got it from some combination of public databases and data breaches. Like a fingerprint, I can't easily change my contact info, so here we are.
I want the smartphone without the phone. Signal audio is often better quality anyway.
Aside: I want callers who aren't explicitly in my phone's contacts to solve an audio CAPTCHA before my phone accepts their text/call/voicemail. This would not affect family or friends, would provide a path for important calls like medical, financial, or government calls, and would significantly increase the cost of spam.
I assure you, I did not give my number (or email) to the spammers who contact me multiple times a day.
I'm sure they got it from some combination of public databases and data breaches. Like a fingerprint, I can't easily change my contact info, so here we are.
I want the smartphone without the phone. Signal audio is often better quality anyway.
Aside: I want callers who aren't explicitly in my phone's contacts to solve an audio CAPTCHA before my phone accepts their text/call/voicemail. This would not affect family or friends, would provide a path for important calls like medical, financial, or government calls, and would significantly increase the cost of spam.
There seems to be some odd resentment to your point- the person implying that "makers" don't like taking calls, really? FWIW, I like the phone, it often let's things get resolved faster and avoid misunderstanding and promotes diplomacy.
I get where they're coming from though. To me it's more of a personality trait than generational, and our industries do lend themselves to often extreme introversion. I agree with you, it's way faster to get through conversations on the phone. People forget that social norms also apply to texting and that can make them drawn out, before even thinking about how some people only respond in very wide intervals.
Of course it's more convenient for the caller. But what about the receiver of the call? They might be in the middle of other tasks, and perhaps they want to have some time to plan their side of the conversation, as the caller did.
I don't think the argument is that voice communication is not useful. The only issue is unsolicited calls.
I don't think the argument is that voice communication is not useful. The only issue is unsolicited calls.
If you're not interested in taking, then don't answer?
I already don't answer unsolicited calls. I am just explaining my rationale why that's the case.
It’s a maker vs manager/sales thing.
No, I don't think it's a millenial thing.
I agree with you completely.
I agree with you completely.
[deleted]
> It's the equivalent of dropping unannounced at their place.
I started to feel the same way once texting and messaging became common. Having someone call you unexpectedly feels like the equivalent of someone saying "I don't care what it is that you're doing, talk to me right now." I know that's not actually what's going through people's minds, but it feels that way. It's like when someone asks you something over IM instead of over email, even though it isn't time sensitive.
I started to feel the same way once texting and messaging became common. Having someone call you unexpectedly feels like the equivalent of someone saying "I don't care what it is that you're doing, talk to me right now." I know that's not actually what's going through people's minds, but it feels that way. It's like when someone asks you something over IM instead of over email, even though it isn't time sensitive.
If a friend calls me unexpectedly, most of the time I do care more about them than whatever I was doing, because I can just resume what I was doing a few minutes later. Most stuff can be interrupted and resumed without a problem. If this was really important and more important than the thing my friend calls to me with I politely refuse to talk and offer a callback later. Maybe we have a different culture, but calling people on a phone is normal here (Poland).
> Maybe we have a different culture, but calling people on a phone is normal here (Poland).
No, it isn't. I'm also Polish and I'll be pissed at you if you call unexpectedly. Like all the other commenters said, a call is a huge interruption, completely uncalled for when there are IMs or even SMS available. Almost everyone I know in my circle understands it and doesn't call unless it's important.
> most of the time I do care more about them than whatever I was doing, because I can just resume what I was doing a few minutes later. Most stuff can be interrupted and resumed without a problem.
You're lucky to have that kind of work. In my case, most of what I'm doing can't be interrupted and restarted like that. And I'm already getting enough interruptions from my wife, kid, family and co-workers, who always have something urgent happening to them every day. I can't handle any more interrupts.
> If this was really important and more important than the thing my friend calls to me with I politely refuse to talk and offer a callback later.
I have a whole set of "quick response" SMS templates available on the incoming call screen, so I can tell you to go away in more or less polite terms, depending on who you are and how I feel.
No, it isn't. I'm also Polish and I'll be pissed at you if you call unexpectedly. Like all the other commenters said, a call is a huge interruption, completely uncalled for when there are IMs or even SMS available. Almost everyone I know in my circle understands it and doesn't call unless it's important.
> most of the time I do care more about them than whatever I was doing, because I can just resume what I was doing a few minutes later. Most stuff can be interrupted and resumed without a problem.
You're lucky to have that kind of work. In my case, most of what I'm doing can't be interrupted and restarted like that. And I'm already getting enough interruptions from my wife, kid, family and co-workers, who always have something urgent happening to them every day. I can't handle any more interrupts.
> If this was really important and more important than the thing my friend calls to me with I politely refuse to talk and offer a callback later.
I have a whole set of "quick response" SMS templates available on the incoming call screen, so I can tell you to go away in more or less polite terms, depending on who you are and how I feel.
It's like when someone asks you something over IM instead of over email, even though it isn't time sensitive.
That's an interesting perspective. I think that explains some people's behavior. I tend to think of IM as in please reply in the next day or so, and email as in please reply in the next week or two.
I'm always telling people to not say hi in an IM and then wait for me to reply, because if I'm busy I'm not going to reply until later, but then you might not be there, and if you had asked whatever you needed in the first message I could be answering it now
That's an interesting perspective. I think that explains some people's behavior. I tend to think of IM as in please reply in the next day or so, and email as in please reply in the next week or two.
I'm always telling people to not say hi in an IM and then wait for me to reply, because if I'm busy I'm not going to reply until later, but then you might not be there, and if you had asked whatever you needed in the first message I could be answering it now
The expectations I've most commonly encountered are less than two hours for a business IM, or less than 36 hours for an individual-to-individual business email.
Messaging is to email as texting is to physical mail: you send physical mail or email when what you want to send isn't quickly dashed off or replied to, but you also take a large risk that the recipient will never see it (spam filtered), or never bother to read it (left in the inbox with tens of thousands of other emails, hundreds of which are from that very morning), or never reply. Also, you never know if someone turned off read receipts, so you can't even assume they didn't see it and start the escalation message with "Hey, I know you haven't gotten to this yet, but..."
So, for a number of years now texting, Slack, or Messenger was the way to be clearer about the intention of only taking a moment of someone's time, which makes it more likely that they'll pay attention. I've been dismayed, as recently as this week, to see on shared screens a red Slack badge that has numbers in the hundreds.
What we really need is much, much better prioritization systems.
So, for a number of years now texting, Slack, or Messenger was the way to be clearer about the intention of only taking a moment of someone's time, which makes it more likely that they'll pay attention. I've been dismayed, as recently as this week, to see on shared screens a red Slack badge that has numbers in the hundreds.
What we really need is much, much better prioritization systems.
Outside of a few select people (mostly my parents and grandparents), if someone calls me I assume it is an emergency or something very important.
I actually get a surge of anxiety because of this lol.
I actually get a surge of anxiety because of this lol.
In the rare case I make a call without first asking/warning someone I always follow up with a text (even if I leave a VM) saying "Everything is ok, just let me know when you are free to talk" or something similar.
I absolutely love the transcription service for voicemails on iPhone because it means I can easily scan the contents of the messages of people who don't just text after a failed call.
I absolutely love the transcription service for voicemails on iPhone because it means I can easily scan the contents of the messages of people who don't just text after a failed call.
People, for a while: I need to remember to reach out to all my friends and family during this terrible period!
A few months later: Stop calling me! And make sure to slip a note in my mailbox before you even think about texting me!
I REALLY do not like this isolationist culture we're slowly building up to, at least in the U.S. Calling someone is the equivalent of showing up unannounced? I find that notion absurd on its face. Maybe there are some parallels but it stops pretty short.
A few months later: Stop calling me! And make sure to slip a note in my mailbox before you even think about texting me!
I REALLY do not like this isolationist culture we're slowly building up to, at least in the U.S. Calling someone is the equivalent of showing up unannounced? I find that notion absurd on its face. Maybe there are some parallels but it stops pretty short.
Yeah, while I recognize this and even do it myself, it does seem sad. We are too "busy" to talk to the people we like and care about? All interactions have to be "scheduled"? Somehow, things have gone deeply wrong.
I think the biggest backlash is against the spam calls. IF I know the number, I'll be a lot less irritated by a phone call than if I don't.
> It's now rude to just call someone on the phone without asking permission first.
I really wish we could rewind the time for this one. It was so amazing to call people spontaneously.
I really wish we could rewind the time for this one. It was so amazing to call people spontaneously.
Just start doing it, be the change and all that. I do it. Sometimes they answer, sometimes they don’t. Everyone here is overthinking it.
I don't know if it's just an introvert tendency or what. I mean I get it, being so deep whatever project your working on that a phone call--even from someone you like--can seem like a burdensome interruption.
But it does sometimes feel like something bigger has changed.
When I was a kid, the house phone was almost _always_ in use at night and on the weekends. Various family members and friends called just to chat and catch up and BS about whatever was on the news. Birthday calls were placed and gratefully received. The teenagers in the house got in trouble for tying up the line all evening to talk with their friends even after having spent all day with them at school. Today that's all been replaced with texts and tweets and facebook likes and it makes me sad.
But it does sometimes feel like something bigger has changed.
When I was a kid, the house phone was almost _always_ in use at night and on the weekends. Various family members and friends called just to chat and catch up and BS about whatever was on the news. Birthday calls were placed and gratefully received. The teenagers in the house got in trouble for tying up the line all evening to talk with their friends even after having spent all day with them at school. Today that's all been replaced with texts and tweets and facebook likes and it makes me sad.
> The teenagers in the house got in trouble for tying up the line all evening to talk with their friends even after having spent all day with them at school.
They still do this, it's just over FaceTime/Discord/Zoom/etc. Also I don't see the voice->text move as something really that terrible. I have a discord with my close friends and we've essentially left FB groups for this instead. We can all share stuff and consume it on our own timetables instead of having to drop everything and engage at the exact moment someone wants to share. We can always drop into voice/video/screen-share if needed, it's really ideal for me and my friends.
They still do this, it's just over FaceTime/Discord/Zoom/etc. Also I don't see the voice->text move as something really that terrible. I have a discord with my close friends and we've essentially left FB groups for this instead. We can all share stuff and consume it on our own timetables instead of having to drop everything and engage at the exact moment someone wants to share. We can always drop into voice/video/screen-share if needed, it's really ideal for me and my friends.
Oh man, I am getting nostalgic about this. It was amazing to socialize without any formalities.
Analog life is quite the thing. The funny thing is my dad used to complain how phones have ruined physical interaction. He used to have friends just literally show up at the house and see if he is available to hang. He thought phones ended that lifestyle and now he is glued to FB. God help us all...
Analog life is quite the thing. The funny thing is my dad used to complain how phones have ruined physical interaction. He used to have friends just literally show up at the house and see if he is available to hang. He thought phones ended that lifestyle and now he is glued to FB. God help us all...
Now spontaneous calls have been replaced with slack messages, often with the expectation (and I'm guilty of this too) that the recipient will drop everything and reply. At least with a phone call, if they didn't answer you know they are bust.
Personally, I'd prefer a call to at least 50% of slack messages - any time a back and forth is required that could be addressed in a 30 second call but instead takes a slack chat spanning 10 min where you can't really do anything else because of the distraction.
I've tried to encourage people to phone me, including leaving my phone number is my slack status and asking people to consider phoning, but it wasnt really successful
Personally, I'd prefer a call to at least 50% of slack messages - any time a back and forth is required that could be addressed in a 30 second call but instead takes a slack chat spanning 10 min where you can't really do anything else because of the distraction.
I've tried to encourage people to phone me, including leaving my phone number is my slack status and asking people to consider phoning, but it wasnt really successful
But not amazing to be called spontaneously.
What was amazing about it? In my experience phone calls are composed of ten percent the reason you made the call, ninety percent time-wasting greetings, farewells, and pointless smalltalk.
I think OP was referring to calling someone for the sole purpose of socializing, which is often a lot of "pointless smalltalk"
I still call my buddies and they call me - spontaneously - I pick up if I am available. No formality. No scheduling. Just pick up the damn phone and chat!
Slack added huddles recently to cut the friction to call someone. Phone lines before cell phones used to be like that - just call! Instant voice communication. So much better than text.
I feel like I am showing my age now :-)
Slack added huddles recently to cut the friction to call someone. Phone lines before cell phones used to be like that - just call! Instant voice communication. So much better than text.
I feel like I am showing my age now :-)
> I think it's dumb to call them phones
Circa early 2000s we used to call them PDAs. I remember with fond memories my pocketPCs well before the iPhone was even a thing.
Circa early 2000s we used to call them PDAs. I remember with fond memories my pocketPCs well before the iPhone was even a thing.
It's a shame that the concept is gone. I liked PalmPilots. The iPod Touch is the remaining relic of the non-phone smartphone.
[deleted]
Maybe for people who are so sensitive that they actually need time in advance to emotionally prepare to have a vocal conversation with someone.
For everyone else, it's normal.
Know why phone calls don't need emojis? Because most of the time, it's much easier to communicate verbally.
Even at work using slack... sure, we communicate with text a lot of the time, but when shit needs to get done, someone starts a call.
For everyone else, it's normal.
Know why phone calls don't need emojis? Because most of the time, it's much easier to communicate verbally.
Even at work using slack... sure, we communicate with text a lot of the time, but when shit needs to get done, someone starts a call.
I love this and I have been practicing the art of no-phone calls for quite a while. My phone don't even 'ring' except for the selected group that I had specifically set to bypass my 24/7 DND.
I created a tiny website to give out to people asking why - https://no.phone.wtf
I created a tiny website to give out to people asking why - https://no.phone.wtf
> It's now rude to just call someone on the phone without asking permission first.
Is it? I think that norm varies a lot with different sections of culture. If it was universally rude, then it'd be damn silly that phones are all set up to be able to receive calls unsolicited, by default.
"Do not disturb" could be the default.
Is it? I think that norm varies a lot with different sections of culture. If it was universally rude, then it'd be damn silly that phones are all set up to be able to receive calls unsolicited, by default.
"Do not disturb" could be the default.
Except in the country. (Country side)
Where cell phones hardly ever work, and usually everyone is working outside, so they don't answer a land line phone.
In which case you stop by, everyone takes a break over coffee, and a good visit is had by all.
Just not, every day.
I've been working towards calling mine a "Pewter" like Com"puter" for Pocket Computer.
I tend to term such a device a ‘handset’ for that among other reasons.
To us nerds/lizard people, a computer is a programmable information processing device, generally with one or more CPUs, memory, etc. It can be put to a multitude of purposes. A smartphone certainly qualifies (as does a dumbphone, actually).
But normies don't work like that. To normies, a device is defined by the role it fills in your life. In this view, a computer is a device used for work: preparing documents, emails, spreadsheets, and presentations. Maybe programming or data analysis for scientific, engineering, or BI purposes. A phone is a social link: it connects you to the people you care about most. This has been true since before smartphones or even cellphones became commonplace: teenagers in the 80s craved their own landlines and their own phones, and even ordered custom phones like the ones with transparent cases, etc.
So inasmuch as smartphones serve the primary social function they continue to serve, which is to connect you with your social circles and facilitate communication with them, they will continue to be marketed as phones, not computers and not anything else -- even if they completely lose PSTN connectivity.
But normies don't work like that. To normies, a device is defined by the role it fills in your life. In this view, a computer is a device used for work: preparing documents, emails, spreadsheets, and presentations. Maybe programming or data analysis for scientific, engineering, or BI purposes. A phone is a social link: it connects you to the people you care about most. This has been true since before smartphones or even cellphones became commonplace: teenagers in the 80s craved their own landlines and their own phones, and even ordered custom phones like the ones with transparent cases, etc.
So inasmuch as smartphones serve the primary social function they continue to serve, which is to connect you with your social circles and facilitate communication with them, they will continue to be marketed as phones, not computers and not anything else -- even if they completely lose PSTN connectivity.
I used a dumb phone for a few months last year. Ultimately it was actually the difficulty of using iMessage on my other devices conflicting with texting on my dumb phone that made it nonviable for me and forced me to switch back to the iPhone.
There is a difficulty (at least in the states) of finding decent flip phones with the exact level of dumbness that you need. And they are all quite expensive too, due to the nicheness of the product. I eventually found one reasonably priced on eBay secondhand, which seems to be a common story with a lot of dumb phone users.
There is a difficulty (at least in the states) of finding decent flip phones with the exact level of dumbness that you need. And they are all quite expensive too, due to the nicheness of the product. I eventually found one reasonably priced on eBay secondhand, which seems to be a common story with a lot of dumb phone users.
Months ago I've purchased a Nokia 8110 4G which does exactly what I need: calls, receiving confirmation text codes from the bank or other services, occasional photos on the fly (quality is not on par with most smartphones, but acceptable for some uses), and 4G hot spot for the laptop. Never been happier. I don't use it for texting though; coming from a qwerty blackberry-like one, going back to the numerical keypad for texts would be a nightmare.
I paid it new €50 delivered locally, but noticed the price skyrocketed recently and some sellers ask over €400, which is absolutely insane. The price inflation might be related to chips shortage, therefore waiting a bit might be worth.
There is also community dedicated to replacing the factory OS (KaiOS, a fork of Firefox OS) with a more free one.
https://gerda.tech/
https://sites.google.com/view/bananahackers/home
There is also community dedicated to replacing the factory OS (KaiOS, a fork of Firefox OS) with a more free one.
https://gerda.tech/
https://sites.google.com/view/bananahackers/home
The crap Apple does with iMessage really should be illegal.
Apple's only slightly worse than all the others in that they severely limit what you can use iMessage on, but I'll always be a lot more pissed at them because they kicked off this whole mess.
I really miss the days of when I could load all my accounts into Pidgin (Gaim!) and have almost everything centralized. Now I have a teams window (which doesn't bother me too much since it's a work app), a tab for slack, a tab for the umpteenth iteration of whatever Google has decided to call their chat platform, a tab to get SMS messages through google messenger (a welcome change), a window for signal on the desktop, and tabs for Facebook and LinkedIn (both or which I try to never visit, but would like to know if someone contacts my on, and I refuse to load on my phone). I just realized I've apparently abandoned my ICQ/AIM accounts to the past.
That's the desktop. I have almost all those as separate apps on my phone, with separate ways to use them, separate notification preferences, etc.
The instant messaging ecosystem has gone to complete shit, and I doubt anyone that used it seriously before this happened will disagree. And what we got in exchange for every company walling off their own IM system? Honestly, I'm not sure anything that couldn't be recreated fairly easily in a client with a couple months work if someone had extended their protocol to do more.
I really miss the days of when I could load all my accounts into Pidgin (Gaim!) and have almost everything centralized. Now I have a teams window (which doesn't bother me too much since it's a work app), a tab for slack, a tab for the umpteenth iteration of whatever Google has decided to call their chat platform, a tab to get SMS messages through google messenger (a welcome change), a window for signal on the desktop, and tabs for Facebook and LinkedIn (both or which I try to never visit, but would like to know if someone contacts my on, and I refuse to load on my phone). I just realized I've apparently abandoned my ICQ/AIM accounts to the past.
That's the desktop. I have almost all those as separate apps on my phone, with separate ways to use them, separate notification preferences, etc.
The instant messaging ecosystem has gone to complete shit, and I doubt anyone that used it seriously before this happened will disagree. And what we got in exchange for every company walling off their own IM system? Honestly, I'm not sure anything that couldn't be recreated fairly easily in a client with a couple months work if someone had extended their protocol to do more.
> ...I really miss the days of when I could load all my accounts into Pidgin (Gaim!) and have almost everything centralized...
Me too! I'm very much hoping that matrix - the protocol - continues its steady climb (both popularity and adoption), because that is what i see as the future for that kind of experience where if not everything at least lots/most of my comms interactions will be managed on my side by a single "interface". I'm an admitted fanboy of the matrix protocol (as well as matrix apps like Element, FluffyChat, Quaternion, etc.)...so maybe i'm biased, but have you tried playing around with matrix, and its associated apps, to see if it gets you closer to that older Pidgin/Gaim/Adium-like experience?
(I'm not affiliated with the matrix org. nor any app/client builder, as noted i'm just a fanboy.)
Me too! I'm very much hoping that matrix - the protocol - continues its steady climb (both popularity and adoption), because that is what i see as the future for that kind of experience where if not everything at least lots/most of my comms interactions will be managed on my side by a single "interface". I'm an admitted fanboy of the matrix protocol (as well as matrix apps like Element, FluffyChat, Quaternion, etc.)...so maybe i'm biased, but have you tried playing around with matrix, and its associated apps, to see if it gets you closer to that older Pidgin/Gaim/Adium-like experience?
(I'm not affiliated with the matrix org. nor any app/client builder, as noted i'm just a fanboy.)
I haven't, but I have seen discussions of it here. I'm not sure how it could make the situation any better really unless it can actually interoperate with closed protocols (how?) or actually takes over a significant enough portion of the market that people choose to use it in lieu of hangouts or iMessage or facebook, etc, and there are lots of incentives those use to make that unlikely.
In any other case, it's just the XKCD standards meme[1] all over again, in that it might be better in many ways, but I doubt it will actually help market fragmentation.
1: https://xkcd.com/927/ which actually specifically mentions instant messaging.
In any other case, it's just the XKCD standards meme[1] all over again, in that it might be better in many ways, but I doubt it will actually help market fragmentation.
1: https://xkcd.com/927/ which actually specifically mentions instant messaging.
You are not wrong that any new entrant might be introducing yet another standard like the referenced xkcd comic...but I have faith that this protocol will be the one that sticks. Time will tell of course. As far as interacting with closed protocols, yes, matrix most definitely accomodates those scenarios using something called "bridges/"bridging" (via a few methods such as puppeting etc.). You should review the following page for more info (yes, there are lots of bridges though quality differs among them): https://matrix.org/bridges/
What does Apple do with iMessage? I don't have an iPhone and always assumed it's just glorified SMS.
iMessage is exclusive to iPhones and works in the same application that does SMS, seamlessly.
The problem OP is alluding to is that some people avoid talking with people who don’t have iMessage, because SMS costs money. So there is a bit of peer pressure to use it, and a lot of people are stuck in iOS because of that.
It’s not that different from Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp, those apps are also closed and rely on network effects. But they are free and work on other OSs, while iMessage requires a relatively expensive phone.
The problem OP is alluding to is that some people avoid talking with people who don’t have iMessage, because SMS costs money. So there is a bit of peer pressure to use it, and a lot of people are stuck in iOS because of that.
It’s not that different from Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp, those apps are also closed and rely on network effects. But they are free and work on other OSs, while iMessage requires a relatively expensive phone.
OP here. The problem I had was actually more referring to the fact that Apple does not offer fine grained control over how messages are delivered or sent on a per device basis. I can’t easily say, for instance, that I want outgoing messages on all my non phone devices (Mac, iPad, etc) to use iMessage but inbound messages sent from phones should be received via SMS. I also can’t say that I want all messages from certain users to be received via SMS (like my wife, who I should always want to receive on my phone so I can respond quickly).
Should SMS cost money? (Or at least, more than ~10X the bandwidth bill so there's nice monopoly rent for the operator... I can't imagine the actual cost being over ~1 USD/1000 messages.)
It should be free, but spam should cost $5 per message.
Text messages between iPhones are also invisibly shunted to iMessage
When people with iPhones reply to someone who has switched away from Apple, and they use "Messages" (which does both iMessage and SMS) then there's a reasonable chance that the message will go into a black hole, where it will be delivered to iMessage and never appear on the other party's new phone.
This is doubly true if they have ever used an Apple PC to receive iMessages; in that case it will almost certainly never reach the new phone via SMS.
I don't believe there is a fix to this; sometimes you can repair it on the other party's phone by munging the contact, but most messages will just be blackholed.
This is doubly true if they have ever used an Apple PC to receive iMessages; in that case it will almost certainly never reach the new phone via SMS.
I don't believe there is a fix to this; sometimes you can repair it on the other party's phone by munging the contact, but most messages will just be blackholed.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203042
Two solutions. The first requires an iPhone (to disable iMessages on your account with) and the other does not. This has been around for years now.
Two solutions. The first requires an iPhone (to disable iMessages on your account with) and the other does not. This has been around for years now.
This is a comment that should be kept to the annals of reddit. You can say this about any company who does thing out of spec and to create and ecosystem to drive profits. Google, twitter, Ford, IBM.
> You can say this about any company who does thing out of spec and to create and ecosystem to drive profits. Google, twitter, Ford, IBM.
The fact that abuse of standards and customer lock-in is ubiquitous doesn't make it any less abusive.
The fact that abuse of standards and customer lock-in is ubiquitous doesn't make it any less abusive.
Nokia HMD dumb phones are inexpensive in Europe.
Tried two times as phone for family member and suggest do not buy them. Garbage-level plastic, buggy software and dying fast battery.
Maybe 8110 4G & GerdaOS is a good choice, but I'll ignore KaiOS in general.
Maybe 8110 4G & GerdaOS is a good choice, but I'll ignore KaiOS in general.
The non-KaiOS ones work well as a phone and have a long battery life.
and full of nasty bugs, visit the reddit.com/r/KaiOS/ for more info
Their really dumb phones run Series 30+ [1], not KaiOS. A $20 phone can still have good call quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_30%2B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_30%2B
The post isn't really comparing apples-to-apples, with the 1970s workspace being a fixed place in an office, and the smartphone being a mobile device that may be used in the field.
No productive office has replaced all those rolodexes and notebooks with just a phone; most have had them replaced for the past 20 years with a desktop computer which has long satisfied the "components operated simultaneously and independently of the phone" requirement.
No productive office has replaced all those rolodexes and notebooks with just a phone; most have had them replaced for the past 20 years with a desktop computer which has long satisfied the "components operated simultaneously and independently of the phone" requirement.
Isn't that the whole point of folding phones? Also android has had side split windows for ever, and on modern phones that have large tall screens, it works fairly decently.
On a smart phone one can do any of these things while on a phone call. I’m not seeing the point.
Author of TFA seems to have never heard of using headphones while on a smartphone call. It’s like having the 1970s office in my pocket.
I don't know about the author but for me it's not about headphones/being handsfree, it's the fact that the majority of phones and networks right now cannot handle both a voice and a data connection at the same time.
There's few things more quietly annoying than having something (internet-reliant) that I was doing be interrupted by a non-VoIP call, especially when it's someone I wasn't expecting a call from.
There's few things more quietly annoying than having something (internet-reliant) that I was doing be interrupted by a non-VoIP call, especially when it's someone I wasn't expecting a call from.
It's a lot of both and then some:
- Phone-to-head maps poorly to using-phone-as-reference (addresses, maps, calendar, notes)
- Even with speaker, headphones, earbuds, earpiece, etc., toggling between various apps is fraught.
- The mapping of functionality between digital and paper formats ... varies. Digital most definitely does some things far better (search most especially). Others ... not so much. Arguing that digital is an unambiguous advance ... is simply false.
. The device OS may decide it wants to kill specific applications at any time, without notice, or apparent consideration as to significance.
- My office desk phone never stole my contacts, or personal diary, from my rolodex / paper notebook, either while I was on a call or when it was left unattended. (I'm rather surprised nobody's picked up on this particular element of the piece and discussion.)
- Paper gives working area. A desktop is 30 or so times the size of a sheet of A4. My 9" tablet is larger than even today's "phablet" phones ... but has only the display area of two 4x6 index cards. Paper stacks, shuffles, and turns right-angles (e.g., cross-stack sheets portrait then landscape to create divisions) in ways that digital docs don't. If I sort paper in a given order, it doesn't periodically go off and decide it would rather be sorted differently. Yes, the total data density is low. But the real access, input, output, and processing bottleneck isn't the paper, it's the human interacting with it.
I may have heard of headphones at some point. I'm checking my notes.
- Phone-to-head maps poorly to using-phone-as-reference (addresses, maps, calendar, notes)
- Even with speaker, headphones, earbuds, earpiece, etc., toggling between various apps is fraught.
- The mapping of functionality between digital and paper formats ... varies. Digital most definitely does some things far better (search most especially). Others ... not so much. Arguing that digital is an unambiguous advance ... is simply false.
. The device OS may decide it wants to kill specific applications at any time, without notice, or apparent consideration as to significance.
- My office desk phone never stole my contacts, or personal diary, from my rolodex / paper notebook, either while I was on a call or when it was left unattended. (I'm rather surprised nobody's picked up on this particular element of the piece and discussion.)
- Paper gives working area. A desktop is 30 or so times the size of a sheet of A4. My 9" tablet is larger than even today's "phablet" phones ... but has only the display area of two 4x6 index cards. Paper stacks, shuffles, and turns right-angles (e.g., cross-stack sheets portrait then landscape to create divisions) in ways that digital docs don't. If I sort paper in a given order, it doesn't periodically go off and decide it would rather be sorted differently. Yes, the total data density is low. But the real access, input, output, and processing bottleneck isn't the paper, it's the human interacting with it.
I may have heard of headphones at some point. I'm checking my notes.
Interesting- I haven't experienced that issue for about 10 years- I've no idea if 'the majority of phones and networks' still have that problem though.
I own a Pixel 3. Take from that information what you will.
A lot of modern handsets are multi-mode and can switch between CDMA and GSM once unlocked. But yeah ultimately comes down to needing to select a GSM carrier.
I own a Pixel 3. Is that now considered an ancient handset?
It’s more about the network than the phone.
My Pixel 3 can do simultaneous voice and data, because it’s in Australia connecting to GSM based networks.
If it were connecting through CDMA, it could not. CDMA has always been the minority worldwide[0], and is phasing out completely with 4G.
If you’re on a CDMA-using carrier (Eg Verizon) but usually have 4G coverage, you should be able to get simultaneous voice+data by enabling ‘advanced calling’ in the phone’s mobile network settings.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_phone_s...
My Pixel 3 can do simultaneous voice and data, because it’s in Australia connecting to GSM based networks.
If it were connecting through CDMA, it could not. CDMA has always been the minority worldwide[0], and is phasing out completely with 4G.
If you’re on a CDMA-using carrier (Eg Verizon) but usually have 4G coverage, you should be able to get simultaneous voice+data by enabling ‘advanced calling’ in the phone’s mobile network settings.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_phone_s...
It's only an issue if you're dead against using a headset/earphones, or speaker phone.
Yeah, at least on Android I know that it works that way. It's not convenient, you either gotta use earphones or put the other side on speaker but it works.
They're also just bad at being phones! Recently Android has taken to popping up the keypad when it thinks it hears the other end ask for a PIN. And that is exactly before my finger hits the button to open the keypad, resulting in pressing one of the buttons, invalidating my PIN. (This is part of the broader phenomenon of hyperactively rearranging interactive elements of the UI, being unresponsive, but not protecting you from accidentally tapping something you could not have reasonably avoided. UIs should not be able to do unexpected things while also being interactive.)
And I think many of us have probably hung up calls with our faces at least once.
And I think many of us have probably hung up calls with our faces at least once.
I have been using Android for a very long time and have never had this issue with the phone "popping up the keypad when it thinks it hears the other end ask for a PIN". Occasionally a webpage will be coded such that the cursor is in a text box and so the keyboard will pop up, but this is not an Android problem per se. Maybe my experience is unique but I can't tell you the last time I've hung up a phone with my face or had issues like you describe. I have been using Pixel phones of late and Nexus phones before that. All in all they have been pretty solid for me.
Interesting...I've also been using it a long time but only noticed it in roughly the last year. Pixel user as well in the US. If I hold 1 to dial voicemail (which calls carrier voicemail via cellular service), when the lady says "Please enter your password," my keypad pops up. If I call somewhere else, it doesn't pop up. I'll have to call someone who can play that clip back to me and see if it's responding to it.
Didn't know about this. How does it work technically? Does it convert the call from speech to text internally, and opens the keyboard when it hears PIN?
I don't know about the implementation, but I would imagine it's like the "Now Playing" feature, where the phone has local hashes or ML models for current popular music, or common phrases you might hear on the phone. It could also just be that my phone knows when it's calling voicemail, and maybe there is out of band info telling the phone app that it wants a PIN.
I thought I had heard that term before. Found the following article in my bookmarks describing how to make your phone more boring and less usable on purpose. Not the same topic, still highly recommended. https://nomasters.io/posts/dumber-phone/
Also, I really like to use this minimalist launcher from time to time: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.jkuester.unlauncher/
Also, I really like to use this minimalist launcher from time to time: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.jkuester.unlauncher/
I use a similar launcher: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/fr.neamar.kiss/
I have a lot of the features tweaked or disabled. The way it is configured, it basically acts as a static list of a few apps I use most, with a search bar to access anything else.
I find this setup to be more straightforward than the normal icons+folders type of launcher. I have handed my phone to other people who have never used it, and they have no problem finding things because you can just search.
I have a lot of the features tweaked or disabled. The way it is configured, it basically acts as a static list of a few apps I use most, with a search bar to access anything else.
I find this setup to be more straightforward than the normal icons+folders type of launcher. I have handed my phone to other people who have never used it, and they have no problem finding things because you can just search.
When someone rings my phone, I put my airpods in and tap to accept call.
It is a fair point that if you aren't using a hands-free headset or the speaker then accessing other features on your phone while in a call is problematic. However, if you are on a hands free headset then the author's point kind of falls apart. That said, I wish I could buy a palm phone (small mostly just a phone) because I do all the other stuff (calendaring, looking up dates, Etc.) on my iPad that I use with my phone.
Well, the computer at the front of the desk does all of the tasks listed and more, and it works independently from the phone.
The 1970s desktop was not portable. But when working away from the office using only a phone, it's quite easy to switch applications while on a call, just connect a headset or switch to speakerphone. Laptop is an easy option for portability as well.
The 1970s desktop was not portable. But when working away from the office using only a phone, it's quite easy to switch applications while on a call, just connect a headset or switch to speakerphone. Laptop is an easy option for portability as well.
The PC + freestanding desk phone was an interesting variant. It went through a few iterations, from sneakernet to dumb terminal to (locally) networked, to fully globally interconnected. I've lived through virtually all of that, and worked through much of it.
The O'Reilly book UNIX Power Tools gives a number of examples of (mostly terminal-based) tools that could be used for office productivity. I went through a number of grep-based (or similar) phonelist iterations myself.
There's a critical difference between the disconnected, and fully integrated system. The ability to look up a number on your desktop (either directly or as a terminal), and manually enter the number on a phone, is useful. It's not fully automated (so no call-centre automation), but it also means that the phone itself cannot exfiltrate data.
Note that phone numbers themselves are typically short and a relatively dense namespace. The US 10-digit number allows a theoretical maximum of 10 billion numbers ... actually somewhat fewer given technical limitations. That's only about 30x the current population of the US, meaning that if each person has an assigned number randomly dialing digits will connect 1 time in 30. That's a tractable search.
If the phone-number length were doubled, then wardialing would connect only about 1 time in 10 billion. Exhaustive search for active numbers would be infeasible.
But we'd all have to dial 20-digit numbers.
Or you could shorten the sequence by switching to lowercase alphabet (14 characters), alphanumeric (12), or mixed-case alphanumeric (11). If you used an 8,000 word dictionary (roughly the length of EFF's Diceware passphrase generator long wordlist), you'd need five words to provide a similar namespace.
That is: there's a trade-off between the conciseness of the namespace and the ability to abuse it for unsolicited calls.
(This is assuming that all phone spammers dial randomly, which of course isn't the case, but it's the start of one approach to addressing the problem.)
The O'Reilly book UNIX Power Tools gives a number of examples of (mostly terminal-based) tools that could be used for office productivity. I went through a number of grep-based (or similar) phonelist iterations myself.
There's a critical difference between the disconnected, and fully integrated system. The ability to look up a number on your desktop (either directly or as a terminal), and manually enter the number on a phone, is useful. It's not fully automated (so no call-centre automation), but it also means that the phone itself cannot exfiltrate data.
Note that phone numbers themselves are typically short and a relatively dense namespace. The US 10-digit number allows a theoretical maximum of 10 billion numbers ... actually somewhat fewer given technical limitations. That's only about 30x the current population of the US, meaning that if each person has an assigned number randomly dialing digits will connect 1 time in 30. That's a tractable search.
If the phone-number length were doubled, then wardialing would connect only about 1 time in 10 billion. Exhaustive search for active numbers would be infeasible.
But we'd all have to dial 20-digit numbers.
Or you could shorten the sequence by switching to lowercase alphabet (14 characters), alphanumeric (12), or mixed-case alphanumeric (11). If you used an 8,000 word dictionary (roughly the length of EFF's Diceware passphrase generator long wordlist), you'd need five words to provide a similar namespace.
That is: there's a trade-off between the conciseness of the namespace and the ability to abuse it for unsolicited calls.
(This is assuming that all phone spammers dial randomly, which of course isn't the case, but it's the start of one approach to addressing the problem.)
I wonder when Apple will “invent” having an overlapping window manager on a smartphone like what many people are doing on the Pinephone.
You mean Picture in Picture or split app screen?
I can't say which distro grandparent is using on their Pinephone, but when they say split-screen they could very well mean, literally, what one would find on a desktop.
While personally, this sounds cumbersome to me, some people have very unusual ways of using their Pinephones. To me, that's awesome - we've settled on "how one uses a mobile phone" based on what Google and Apple have designed. Having new, off-the-wall ideas will lead to some people doing slightly insane things, and I say that in the most positive way possible.
Finally, as long as we're straying firmly off-topic: What some people are doing with their mobile Linux devices always reminds me of an Apple ad [0], from when "Think Different" was still the motto of an underdog.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjgtLSHhTPg
While personally, this sounds cumbersome to me, some people have very unusual ways of using their Pinephones. To me, that's awesome - we've settled on "how one uses a mobile phone" based on what Google and Apple have designed. Having new, off-the-wall ideas will lead to some people doing slightly insane things, and I say that in the most positive way possible.
Finally, as long as we're straying firmly off-topic: What some people are doing with their mobile Linux devices always reminds me of an Apple ad [0], from when "Think Different" was still the motto of an underdog.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjgtLSHhTPg
> You mean Picture in Picture or split app screen?
Please not their implementation of split screen brought to the iPhone. Years of working on an iPad Pro, and I still trigger it accidentally when I don't want it, can never trigger it when I do want it or get rid of it, and always wind up having to Google it again.
Please not their implementation of split screen brought to the iPhone. Years of working on an iPad Pro, and I still trigger it accidentally when I don't want it, can never trigger it when I do want it or get rid of it, and always wind up having to Google it again.
I think author needs tablet. Some have 4g connectivity and can make regular phone calls. Basically 10" phone.
I'd go with a laptop first.
Then an e-book reader. With WiFi but no SIM.
Then a very function-limited dumb-phone, with tethering capability.
"The Case Against Tablets": https://joindiaspora.com/posts/880e5c403edb013918e1002590d8e...
(Most of the meat is in comments to that post.)
Then an e-book reader. With WiFi but no SIM.
Then a very function-limited dumb-phone, with tethering capability.
"The Case Against Tablets": https://joindiaspora.com/posts/880e5c403edb013918e1002590d8e...
(Most of the meat is in comments to that post.)
> It's almost as if putting your filing system, personal diary, correspondence, photo album, and directory on a surveillance and exfiltration device was a Bad Idea.
I hate that tone and way of arguing.
It is as if the author is accusing everyone of buying a surveillance device and then coming up with other uses than being surveyed.
I hate that tone and way of arguing.
It is as if the author is accusing everyone of buying a surveillance device and then coming up with other uses than being surveyed.
The author assumes that everyone(including our parents and less than technical peers) knew it was a surveillance device. Saying like "1984 is not a manual.." were considered by the masses to be nothing more than a pessimistic saying. At some level...myself and [likely] others really didn't expect it to turn evil so quickly and so effectively. Meanwhile... the devices got sticky - they are packed with ways to cause addiction and enjoyment; filled with bread and circuses.
If I may speak on behalf of the author:
There's a great deal of frustration and fatigue in that comment.
The expectation isn't that the general public would have been aware of that risk. The general public is not sophisticated, and has been greatly misinformed.
The technical world, the firms offering and provisioning devices, the carriers, the financiers and banks behind this, especially, are.
Technology is the art of balancing desired and undesired effects.
For-profit business is the art of externalising risk.
And the heart of finance itself is risk.
There's a very long record of cautions and warnings. They were ignored, largely because in the short term and with suffient levels of externalisation and arabitrage, those risks were profitable.
https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105074933053020193
There's a great deal of frustration and fatigue in that comment.
The expectation isn't that the general public would have been aware of that risk. The general public is not sophisticated, and has been greatly misinformed.
The technical world, the firms offering and provisioning devices, the carriers, the financiers and banks behind this, especially, are.
Technology is the art of balancing desired and undesired effects.
For-profit business is the art of externalising risk.
And the heart of finance itself is risk.
There's a very long record of cautions and warnings. They were ignored, largely because in the short term and with suffient levels of externalisation and arabitrage, those risks were profitable.
https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105074933053020193
It almost sounds ironic...and not everyone likes irony.
No, it sounds sarcastic and condescending.
I find it interesting to see a blog post about 'the tyranny of the minimum viable user' when the website itself doesn't work without Javascript. The irony is, the article text is almost entirely contained inside the description meta.
It's an extreme stance to ban all JS - but if you're going to make a post about dumb phones that requires a modern smart phone to even view it, seems backwards to me.
That's a misrepresentation of the proposal.
JS is not banned.
Sites which present no content without JS (including Diaspora pods) would be inelligible for submission.
JS is not banned.
Sites which present no content without JS (including Diaspora pods) would be inelligible for submission.
The author's arguments kind of remind me of those of the interviewer in this 1979 clip with Ted Nelson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI
Great interview, one of my faves.
It's also appropriate, though possibly not for the reasons you'd chosen it.
Max Allen, Nelson's interviewer, struggled to be able to think far enough forward to comprehend how a tool he thought of as a glorified calculator might possibly be of use to the average person. The problem of course was that he was mis-categorising the tool, and greatly underestimating its capabilities and applications.
The issue I'm seeing in this thread, and amongst communications device and software designers, is a similar failure of comprehension and imagination, of being unable to look back in time and understand how a glorified bit of papyrus and leaky grease tube (pen and paper) could possibly serve the functions modern smartphones do. Again, it's a misunderstanding of the capabilities, workflow, possibilities, and affordances.
Thanks for illustrating the point so clearly!
It's also appropriate, though possibly not for the reasons you'd chosen it.
Max Allen, Nelson's interviewer, struggled to be able to think far enough forward to comprehend how a tool he thought of as a glorified calculator might possibly be of use to the average person. The problem of course was that he was mis-categorising the tool, and greatly underestimating its capabilities and applications.
The issue I'm seeing in this thread, and amongst communications device and software designers, is a similar failure of comprehension and imagination, of being unable to look back in time and understand how a glorified bit of papyrus and leaky grease tube (pen and paper) could possibly serve the functions modern smartphones do. Again, it's a misunderstanding of the capabilities, workflow, possibilities, and affordances.
Thanks for illustrating the point so clearly!
Of course I think you have it wrong here (and I don't really appreciate being told that I have a lack of comprehension, nor having my argument misrepresented in such a way. Perhaps try to consider the counterarguments being made in this thread more charitably).
I think Nelson's point was that the computer is a strict superset of those previous forms of writing. It doesn't need to replace every single instance of pen and paper, or Rolodex, or secretarial staff, but there's no reason why it shouldn't in any case where the cost is low enough.
I think that the argument that the smartphone's UI is more synchronous than those past technologies is true in some ways but it's a weak one: that's easily solved by just having multiple computers, or multiple terminals (or most likely a desktop and a smartphone). If that is not yet cheap enough, that's still fine, because you could simply continue to use the smartphone together with a notepad or secretary until it is cheap enough (as many do today).
If people are choosing to forgo those past technologies in exchange for a more synchronous UI today, I don't think it's because they are not imaginative enough to understand that notepads can still be used. It is simply because they are willing to accept a somewhat more synchronous interface in exchange for a vastly more efficient ability to execute those tasks synchronously. Or, perhaps they simply don't find it to be too synchronous: after all, we only have two ears and two eyes, so there is a limit to the advantage of having multiple channels, and perhaps modern smartphone users are just very effective at maximizing the bandwidth of that interface (considering how many have pointed out here that there are many options for multitasking on smartphones).
I think Nelson's point was that the computer is a strict superset of those previous forms of writing. It doesn't need to replace every single instance of pen and paper, or Rolodex, or secretarial staff, but there's no reason why it shouldn't in any case where the cost is low enough.
I think that the argument that the smartphone's UI is more synchronous than those past technologies is true in some ways but it's a weak one: that's easily solved by just having multiple computers, or multiple terminals (or most likely a desktop and a smartphone). If that is not yet cheap enough, that's still fine, because you could simply continue to use the smartphone together with a notepad or secretary until it is cheap enough (as many do today).
If people are choosing to forgo those past technologies in exchange for a more synchronous UI today, I don't think it's because they are not imaginative enough to understand that notepads can still be used. It is simply because they are willing to accept a somewhat more synchronous interface in exchange for a vastly more efficient ability to execute those tasks synchronously. Or, perhaps they simply don't find it to be too synchronous: after all, we only have two ears and two eyes, so there is a limit to the advantage of having multiple channels, and perhaps modern smartphone users are just very effective at maximizing the bandwidth of that interface (considering how many have pointed out here that there are many options for multitasking on smartphones).
Again: That really is a favourite interview. I'm familiar with Nelson's work. I agree with many of his views, differ strongly on others.
I also stand by what I said: it's easy to focus on what you know, and to ignore or discount foreign experiences, whether local or distant, or future or past.
One of Nelson's problems is that he's not an effective communicator when talking to the general public. He has advanced ideas. He certainly feels strongly about them. Some are valid, though I suspect others ... not quite so much.
In particular he falls into one of the classic technologist's fallacies: seeing the potential benefits of a tool, process, or technology, but not its drawbacks. Most especially the emergent drawbacks. If you look at the contemporary litany of complaints about technology (spam, advertising, censorship, propaganda, surveillance, manipulation, clickbait, adware, attention fragmentation, an ever-expanding security attack surface and threat model, platform complexity, an obsolescence treadmill, fragile systems, business-model / monetisation challenges, etc., etc.), I think you'll find that Nelson didn't anticipate them, and even now doesn't much address them. These are inherent to the type and level of technology we've adopted.
By contrast, the limits of paper reduce much of that.
The limits of paper do pose numerous other challenges. This is a trade-off.
But that is my point: to consider the specific affordances and drawbacks of each approach, to look closely at the overall structure and system, and to think critically about which of those aspectare truly valuable, and which constitute blocks too true value (to the end-user, as opposed to value-extraction by a hardware vendor or service provider).
My comment above does have its cheeky aspect. But I'm completely serious about the overall point: that there's a blindness to the unfamiliar, and that it works both ways.
Maybe in another 20--30 years you'll have a better understanding of this.
I also stand by what I said: it's easy to focus on what you know, and to ignore or discount foreign experiences, whether local or distant, or future or past.
One of Nelson's problems is that he's not an effective communicator when talking to the general public. He has advanced ideas. He certainly feels strongly about them. Some are valid, though I suspect others ... not quite so much.
In particular he falls into one of the classic technologist's fallacies: seeing the potential benefits of a tool, process, or technology, but not its drawbacks. Most especially the emergent drawbacks. If you look at the contemporary litany of complaints about technology (spam, advertising, censorship, propaganda, surveillance, manipulation, clickbait, adware, attention fragmentation, an ever-expanding security attack surface and threat model, platform complexity, an obsolescence treadmill, fragile systems, business-model / monetisation challenges, etc., etc.), I think you'll find that Nelson didn't anticipate them, and even now doesn't much address them. These are inherent to the type and level of technology we've adopted.
By contrast, the limits of paper reduce much of that.
The limits of paper do pose numerous other challenges. This is a trade-off.
But that is my point: to consider the specific affordances and drawbacks of each approach, to look closely at the overall structure and system, and to think critically about which of those aspectare truly valuable, and which constitute blocks too true value (to the end-user, as opposed to value-extraction by a hardware vendor or service provider).
My comment above does have its cheeky aspect. But I'm completely serious about the overall point: that there's a blindness to the unfamiliar, and that it works both ways.
Maybe in another 20--30 years you'll have a better understanding of this.
I used an iPod 5th generation for a few years as a phone (it's basically an iPhone 5 without a baseband chip). I used the Skype app to ring people and send messages.
Whatsapp is not compatible with iPods which I always found annoying. This is because Whatsapp requires a SIM, which iPods don't support.
Skype nagged me to update, which I couldn't since 5th generation iPods are tied to iOS 9.3.5 forever and can't update. The 7th generation iPods however have a later version of iOS and support more apps.
Currently I have two phones. One is a dumbphone for normal calls and SMS (You would be surprised at how much business is conducted with SMS and calls). Then a smartphone which I NEVER use for calls, just use it as a mini 'tablet' for surfing the web and using Maps etc
Whatsapp is not compatible with iPods which I always found annoying. This is because Whatsapp requires a SIM, which iPods don't support.
Skype nagged me to update, which I couldn't since 5th generation iPods are tied to iOS 9.3.5 forever and can't update. The 7th generation iPods however have a later version of iOS and support more apps.
Currently I have two phones. One is a dumbphone for normal calls and SMS (You would be surprised at how much business is conducted with SMS and calls). Then a smartphone which I NEVER use for calls, just use it as a mini 'tablet' for surfing the web and using Maps etc
Haha wow this is an excellent point. I'd never thought about it this way before.
I don't understand the first point because I can access my calendar, email, contact, etc all during a call on my phone without problem (Android 10).
The second makes sense if you look at it from the lens of you not having infinite markup possibilities in your digital calendar compared to writing whatever you want on a desk calendar, but my calendar is with me everywhere. You can get a lot done with plain text notes and the 'description' section of a calendar event.
I consider my phone an all in one productivity machine, not an entertainment machine, and I think that works well for me.