
A world managed by apps is closed for those without a smartphone - mooreds
http://www.techsociotech.com/2013/12/a-world-managed-by-apps-is-closed-for.html?m=1
======
generalpf
I used to be irritated by the number of "welfare moms" I see around town with
smartphones. Certainly they should focus on their shoddily-clothen children
first, right? Well I shared that thought with my brother, who has more
experience with these kinds of things, and he explained that their smartphone
is their only Internet connection. With Internet access becoming a necessary
utility, a smartphone is the cheapest entry point to the Internet. Now I don't
judge.

~~~
al2o3cr
You can identify "welfare moms"? You should totally post an article describing
how you've managed to ID the economic status of people remotely.

Either that, or check your goddamn privilege and stop making assumptions about
people.

~~~
babblingdweeb
While I apprecaite your passion...I think there is one thing worth mentioning
about generalpf's post: they stated how someone informed them of something
they had not known, they are openly stating they realize they were wrong in
their original assumption, and they are now spreading that same information to
others in the hopes (I assume) of correcting others who might feel the same as
they previously did.

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.

~~~
rokhayakebe
* they are openly stating they realize they were wrong in their original assumption*

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."

~~~
Dylan16807
Is welfare mom an insult I wasn't aware of? Assuming someone has shoddy
clothes because they can't afford better seems reasonable to me. It would be
insulting only to imply that they're wasting their money and neglecting
important things on purpose.

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.

~~~
dovel
I think the term "welfare mom" creates a 'figure'. It is baking the 'welfare'
part into her idenity as a mother and seems distinct from just a mother who
happens to be claiming welfare.

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.

~~~
Dylan16807
I think it's fair to bake economics into their identity when the conversation
is solely about economics, and not about specific people.

~~~
dovel
I would not really call it a issue of economics, since you are assuming
someone elses economic situation it becomes a social issue.

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.

~~~
Dylan16807
If you see one, it might have been a gift or won. If you see 10 out of 20 with
them, it becomes reasonable to assume it was a purchase.

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.

------
kleiba
_The people who are economically disadvantaged enough that acquiring a new or
replacing a broken smart handheld is just fricking hard,_

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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
" _I personally think that many of the advantages of the digital age are
things that are not crucial to living a happy life._ "

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.

~~~
gurkendoktor
Is there a proven causal link between smartphones and productivity? I can
imagine that managers love them, but what about everyone else?

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.

~~~
jimmaswell
I could claim facebook improved social productivity. Made it easier to
organize events, for one thing.

~~~
collyw
Plenty of people seem to spend a lot of working hours on facebook, which I
assume decreases productivity. I know some people who appear to do nothing
else.

------
Zigurd
1\. Mobile devices are cheaper than PCs. One reason mobile ended the PC era is
that the manufacturing economies of mobile devices are better than those for
PCs.

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?

~~~
elorant
_Mobile devices are cheaper than PCs. One reason mobile ended the PC era is
that the manufacturing economies of mobile devices are better than those for
PCs._

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.

~~~
gizmo686
>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.

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.

------
mikestew
No one is missing out, at least not yet, and I don't think they'll miss out
any time soon. I say this as a person who has a Nest thermostat, Philips Hue
lights, and a Nissan Leaf. All of those items can be remotely accessed with my
phone. I've never fiddled with the Nest when I'm not home (turned the heat
down from bed once. Once, because I could.) With the lights I have no choice
but to control them from the phone. But that was my choice to buy lights that
require a computer to control. I can remotely turn the heat or A/C on in the
Leaf, start charging, or check status. When the free 3 years is up on that
feature, I would only pay a pittance to continue service.

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.

~~~
dkokelley
I agree with your point, although I think you miss the author's point
slightly. In our personal lives, the choice to buy the cheap analog version of
things is still an option, while those of us with access to technology can
leverage it in a way that makes our lives easier. This "widens the gap"
between the haves and have-nots. 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. There is an
ever-increasing pressure on people to adopt new technology, and those who
can't afford to must find ways to work around these limits.

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").

~~~
mikestew
Rather than miss the point, I think I just avoided it. I guess it was the
opening ("we can unlock our doors with a phone, but what about the poor?") and
his implication that it will all soon be nothing but iPhones (because that's
the biggest market, the author alleges, which isn't even accurate if one isn't
selling the app itself for money).

> 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.

------
nkuttler
I don't particularly like smartphones. Yes, I have mobile devices, but only
for professional reasons. I don't depend on a single mobile app.

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?

------
forgottenpaswrd
Some people just need to find something bad on everything, no matter how good
it is.

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.

------
fidotron
Smartphones (and the distinction at the low end is blurring fast) are simply
displacing PCs, as was inevitable and anticipated by people such as Mr Gates
when he launched his war on Symbian.

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.

~~~
marcosdumay
I'd bet that the cloud will get very big for a while... and then it'll rain...
ok, ok, and then native applications will take off.

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.

------
yetanotherphd
This is a serious issue, but I don't think it was given a very serious
treatment by the author. Smartphones offer objective benefits, and maybe cheap
smartphones are worth buying even for the very poor. In that case, making
everything smartphone based would benefit everyone.

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?

------
gmu3
""" The fiercest critics of technology still focus on the ephemeral have-and-
have-not divide, but that flimsy border is a distraction. The significant
threshold of technological development lies at the boundary between
commonplace and ubiquity, between the have-laters and the “all have.” When
critics asked us champions of the internet what we were going to do about the
digital divide and I said “nothing,” I added a challenge: “If you want to
worry about something, don’t worry about the folks who are currently offline.
They’ll stampede on faster than you think. Instead you should worry about what
we are going to do when everyone is online. When the internet has six billion
people, and they are all e-mailing at once, when no one is disconnected and
always on day and night, when everything is digital and nothing offline, when
the internet is ubiquitous. That will produce unintended consequences worth
worrying about.” """ \--Kevin Kelly (What Technology Wants)

------
massysett
This is not unlike what was said about a world without payphones:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/pay-
ph...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/pay-phones-a-
technology-for-the-poor-thats-about-to-get-left-hanging/258406/)

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.

------
mooreds
this article is more interesting to me because of the development paradigm it
outlines: make the mobile phone the hub of the internet of things. this is in
contrast to the smart fridges and thermostats that I thought were going to be
the manifestation.

------
JoelJacobson
Apps for absolutely everything, not even when it makes any sense. It probably
won't take long until some genious somes up with an iToliet which can only be
flushed with some stupid app, and when we're at it, why not an app to wipe
your but.

