A world managed by apps is closed for those without a smartphone
techsociotech.com
techsociotech.com
Either that, or check your goddamn privilege and stop making assumptions about people.
You do know that this is hurting, not helping, your case right? Unless your goal is to yell until everyone agrees with you, in which case be my guest.
I agree with the general sentiment of the over the top outraged post you quoted but obviously, as pointed out, it is not the best way of putting it. However, I agree that people shouldn't need to be given a reason to not judge someone else for a variety of reasons, especially the number of judgments going on in his post. 1) that being on welfare and having a child is a negative 2) that a mother with a child on welfare should not own a smart phone 3) that children who are clothed shoddily are in some way affecting the children? The children do not know what is shoddy, us adults and out class biases place that on them 4) that a mother on welfare with a child who is clothed shoddily should not own a smartphone / mother neglects child because she can't dress her child well but has a smartphone.
So with those put out there. I find it personally difficult to read these types of posts because I am aware that even the slightest aggression or looking down on someone in an explanation of why you shouldn't say or think in that way generates massive controversy, as it is here, but in this case they is be overly hostile. And seriously, outrage is generated by people around these parts of the web for what they see as political correctness OTT but in reality it is a network of assumptions and judgements etc that create hostility, and I see attitudes such as the one this guy said he had before his brother pointed the flaws out to him as a problem.
So, my question which I have long windedly led you to is - how would you approach someone on this topic with the intention of persuading them that judgment is really irrelevant to any situation you are in, especially if you are judging people less well off than yourself.
Like any disagreement, I don't know what I'll say in advance, because it's such a situational on-the-fly decision. I know my limited chunk of understanding on the issues and where I stand on them, that's all the preparation I need. Using that I can keep the conversation going instead of reciting prepared talking points. Especially not talking points from the Internet I don't fully comprehend but am are assured are right. Even if I don't change someone's mind in the slightest, I'd rather talk over the issue and understand a perspective I don't agree with instead of showing off just how right I am.
When looking at any problem, social or otherwise, the newly informed that become champions are just as important to the very passionate and an entire movement. We don't need to say "Good job" every time someone turns around, but we don't need to beat them up either.
(edit) My apologies, looks like I commented off thread...this was in response to forgotten pass' comment.
You do not get it boss. He did not say he was wrong about assuming their social status, but he was in mistake for assuming they had better spend their money else where other than on a smartphone. For all we know he still looks at those people as "welfare moms."
Edit: I mean I'm aware of 'welfare queen' as an insult but I've never seen 'welfare mom' have that same meaning, or anything other than 'mom on welfare'. And when you're talking about socioeconomic status 'welfare' doesn't have to be quite literal, just signifying a level of income.
If "welfare mom" was an insult, it would probably refer to that.
This is used in race studies but also class studies for instance 'chav' in the UK and your use works much the same way. It means you are identifying someone in a way that it is most likely they would not identify themselves.
You are matching your perception of someone with your pre-existing notions of them - typifying them in a sense. There are so many things to consider, really.
If you see someone in a Lamborghini, you might assume they are rich. But they may in fact be massively in debt. Therefore the analysis becomes a social one - about there access to funds or cars and not necessarily related to their economic status.
If you see a mother with a phone you think she couldn't / shouldn't be able to afford (I realise they used this example as a past belief but may as well use it). The phone could have been a gift, it could have been won - there are so many factors that you are reducing to one.
The point of identifying a trend is to reduce the factors. If there isn't in fact a trend, that's when you look very closely at the individual person, or that's the point where you embarrassedly drop the subject because you made a false correlation.
Side note: I consider you rich if you can make payments on expensive-enough things, even if your debt is greater than your assets.
What I'm checking right now is whether I'm on tumblr. Strange, I don't seem to be.
And you assume that generalpf has privilege based on significant but not-certain attributes they show... interesting.
Women using EBT cards at the grocery store with their kids? Not sure what is so difficult to identify.
check your goddamn privilege
These kinds of hackneyed ad-hominem classist catchprases really do not contribute to the conversation.
The wording here (and further down in the article) makes it sound as if it's an undisputed fact that everybody wants a smart phone and the only reason not to have one is an economical one. But some people just choose not to own a smart phone, or any mobile phone for that matter. Reasons for that include e.g. privacy concerns, but also that to some people a phone would just not create enough of a benefit. This, however, might change of course if the trend identified in the article (more and more services are substantially harder to use without a phone) continues.
will find themselves burdened always having only secondary access to the world: always having to type 20 digit numbers though hostile phone menu trees to finish topping up, having to go to a specific location to find the right form and find it is out of stock this week and wasting a trip, carry little top-up cards and keys they may lose, not being able to remotely check on their homes or work, not reaping the benefits of a world going digital.
Granted, I live in a country that is 10 years behind compared to the US in terms of technical pervasion, but I don't think I know anyone who uses their phone to remotely check on their homes or work. As far as I can tell, people around me still use phones mostly to make calls (shocking, I know) and (the tech-savvy ones) to do Google searches. That's by far the lion share.
I think the next generation though, i.e., today's teenagers actually do use apps, but for the 30+ in my immediate surroundings that's a rare exception. This is certainly different in the states.
Therefore the perception over here is a bit different from countries like the US or Japan where technology is embraced more willingly or widely. But the effects described in the article might well make it to other countries as well, if only with a bit of a delay. But I don't think that that's too dramatic. I personally think that many of the advantages of the digital age are things that are not crucial to living a happy life. Apps etc. can make a lot of things a lot easier or more convenient, but you can just as easy live a life where the things that are made easier do not matter all that much. Consequently, the digital divide described in the article might become a reality (or not) but it remains to be seen if its influence on the average person's life is more than marginal.
Given the causal link between relative productivity and happiness, I'd depreciate the odds of living happily without modern connectivity as the value of that connectivity is furthered.
They're similar in that they don't address immediate survival needs, but rather are there to make life more comfortable.
But electricity is a much more basic service while smart phones are an order of magnitude more high-level. As a result, a lot of the benefits that are provided by smart phones have competitors (office land line, desktop computers, etc.) which cannot provide all the advantages of smart phones (and are not integrated into a single device) but in sum make it much easier, I would say, to live a modern life without a smart phone than to live one without electricity.
Not saying that they're bad, but I think for most people they're more like Facebook. Nobody would ever claim that Facebook improved humanity's productivity, but one can still feel "locked out" without it.
I don't know anyone who uses their smart in a way that's more than a combination laptop/dumb-phone. And usually a rather limited combination. Admittedly, I'm now outside early adopter circles.
I have a smart phone. In practice, I have no reason not to have a "feature phone" instead.
Edit: In relation to original article, I think the idea that the world is going to "appified" rapidly is implausible. For example, having a separate remote for your apartment's gate may be a hassle but it's not a hassle for the apartment's owners and so they have little incentive to spend money to universalize this.
Smart Phone only services may appear spread a bit but they have no more likelihood of becoming universal than Facebook-only services.
2. Mobile connectivity is more available than fixed connectivity, even to the poor.
3. Touch interfaces are friendlier than PC interfaces.
So if you want to make a realistic comparison, find out what a person with limited resources is going to buy first: A smart mobile device, or a PC?
And a further barely related thought, as phones get cheaper, what a rich spying device would be a phone dropped outside a company or government building, compared to a dropped flash drive.
About that second point, I guess phones are already cheap enough to be used that way. Up to now it's probably more effective to just hack somebody's phone, it probably has lower risks, and a highter success ratio. If phones become more secure, I can imagine people just doing what you said.
In the long run they're actually more expensive. You don't change your PC every two years. Actually, if you don't play video games you don't even need to change it for five years or more. Most smartphone users I know change devices every 18 months.
Touch interfaces are friendlier than PC interfaces.
I see a lot of people who have developed mild RSI problems in their wrists from usage of mobile devices, especially tablets. In the PC we have a wonderful accessory which is the trackball. I prefer it 10x times more than dragging my whole hand over a hard surface. Give it another 10 years and we'd end up with a whole generation with severe health problems in their hands.
I suspect this is a short term phenomena. Smartphones have been getting better at an exceptional rate, wheras computers have recently reached the point of 'good enough', where people do not need to upgrade as often. Combined with the free upgrade system that a lot of companies have, and the connection with contracts, it is easy to imagine that the current state is not long term. Also, the poor are exactly the people who would continue to use an old device that is good enough, even after a shinier model comes out.
2) What kind of mobile connectivity? WiFi is getting harder to find, as more and more APs lock down their connections for liability reasons. There's also the security risks with open WiFi APs. 4g is expensive, and with some pretty low data caps.
3) Depends on what you grew up with. The only thing touch replaces is the mouse, and if you grew up with a mouse, it can take a bit to learn all of the "natural" gestures that tablets expect.
To summarize, I'm paying about $140 a month for my and my wife's "cheap" smartphones, with a $200 up front payment and a 2 year contract. The computer I'm typing this on, on the other hand, costs me $40 a month for fiber, with a $200 up front payment (chromebook).
Mobile certainly isn't cheaper, at least for me, and I'm in a comfortable place with my finances.
I'd rather have a computer because it's better for me, but I would not be surprised at all to see downmarket audiences switch aggressively (and I've started to see it around me already, but I live in a very urban area with good cell coverage).
Let's also consider that the Nest is $279, the Hue lights run $60 per bulb, and the Leaf is a $30K car (all in USD). If you can afford those, you can afford an iPhone.
The author thinks there's a gap that doesn't exist, and my guess is that is because he lives surrounded by that remotely-controlled world (and perhaps helps create products to fit that world). Let me give another side to it: it's a pain in the ass. Fire up the phone, unlock it, go find the app, fiddle with the controls...all to just turn on a light in the living room or turn up the heat. Yes, pity the po' folk who are reduced to walking over and flipping a light switch.
No one is missing out. The title is accurate in the app-controlled world is closed to those without the devices. But I don't buy the argument that one gains an advantage by living in that world. As it stands now, it's a nice-to-have world of expensive devices that fit well with the smartphone you already have. Let's wring our hands when app-only devices like door locks and thermostats become commodities and the devices to control them are still expensive. I predict it won't happen, as the price of smart door locks comes down so will the price of smartphones.
In a way, we already live in the world described in the article. Imagine the impact on cars when they first arrived. "The wealthy can afford to take jobs farther away, while the poor are limited to work only as far as they can walk!" Having the perspective of a century of progress, I can tell you the impact, and I doubt many would argue that automobiles are a net loss to society. Unfortunately it sometimes seems like the only equitable solution is to restrict the use of technology so that those without it are not too disadvantaged (i.e. "If we limit cars to walking speed, everyone will have the same job opportunities").
> At the same time, as technology advances, tools and services that the poor relied on (e.g. payphones, print newspapers, and coin-operated parking meters) are declining in availability.
Those are actually good examples that are actually being displaced and for which no cheap option exists, and might have better made the author's point in the opening. I just don't see cheap lightbulbs being displaced by $60 Hue bulbs any time soon. Thanks for the differing perspective.
My main phone is an old symbian nokia, and one charge lasts a week.
As a web developer I think that most apps should be websites anyway, and I'm always stunned when some basic tools are app-only. Seriously, how hard is it to build a basic web UI if you have an API for your app anyway?
I had been in countries in Africa, and people there have smartphones, not the latest model, and not everyone, but the person who has shares his with other people when they need Internet. Not fiber quality but enough for sending a message to mom or knowing the price in the market of something you sell.
When I was a kid computers were expensive, they had 16 or 256 colors!! and 800x600 screen resolution was luxurious. People will save for getting one additional megabyte to memory, and networking computers were a pain in the *ss.
Now everybody has access to thousands of times more in their pocket, but... there must be something wrong about that.
The fun part about this Internet of Things business is it will go one of two ways; either everything will end up linking through the cloud/NSA, a paradigm web browsers can handle, or it will work with a lot more peer-to-peer connections and long running services, for which the only viable frameworks today are native apps. There are a lot of vested interests pushing the former option, but I'm more willing to bet that the latter is what actually happens.
But first, every thing will be on the cloud. And the move from the cloud into native will be caused by a set of really bad experiences.
The claim that requiring smartphones to access certain services will be a net minus for the poor is not obvious. For example, what if welfare could only be applied for online, but the process was much simpler than paper forms? Would this help or hurt the poor?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/pay-ph...
And now the poor get prepaid cell phones or cheap contract service and they chat on their cell phones while in the Greyhound bus station. As smartphones get cheap they will become just as ubiquitous.