Are smartphones better than PCs?

So, I’m really excited for the epic throw-down that this post on Lifehacker is sure to start. With a title like “Your Smartphone is A Better PC than Your PC Ever Was or Will Be”, nuance has officially left the debate over the ascendancy of mobile devices. Still, I’d like to add a liitle more to the whole PC vs. Smartphone debate (cf. the Jason Griffey-Bobbi Newman dustup)

I agree with Pash’s short list of things that give smartphones the edge in “personal” computing: a smartphone “comes with you wherever you go…knows where you are…is always connected to the internet…handles every form of electronic communication short of Morse code…recognizes your voice and reacts accordingly…[and] doesn’t just spellcheck, but corrects your typos”.

I also agree with his observation that smartphones still lag with respect to several activities, “Namely, right now desktop PCs are better for work. They’re better for typing. They’re better for manipulating large data sets and for heavy computation (like video editing, data crunching, image editing). They’re better at multitasking. They’re better at creation.”

But, according to Pash, this is only temporary. From Bluetooth keyboards to plug-and-play monitors, smartphone peripherals will allow smartphones to bridge the gap and provide a desktop experience. I think this point is too often lost in the debate over the future of mobile technology.

What if, in the near future, we could meet the following criteria:

1. Smartphones match the processing power and storage of the average business PC (either through enhanced architecture or through the cloud), AND
2. Full-scale, productivity-oriented apps (e.g. Office, CS5, or SPSS) are widely available at a reasonable cost, AND
3. Smartphone “docks” are available that allow users to connect their device to peripherals such as a keyboard, monitors, speakers, mouse, printers, etc., AND
4. The cost of a smartphone and peripheral docking station approximates the cost of a standalone PC workstation.

In such a scenario, the smartphone becomes a CPU when heavy-duty processing, content-creation, and multitasking is needed, and a portable communication device after hours. Isn’t this the ideal future for computing? Can’t we try to meet these criteria? Rather than focus on the native capabilities of smartphones and argue that user interfaces in business, entertainment, creative, and communicative activities will adjust to touch screens and miniature displays, let’s accept the peripheral approach and give users the ability to replicate the desktop experience, if they so choose.

This is not a new idea. Celio makes the REDFLY Smartphone terminal, though it only replicates the netbook experience, not the desktop experience. Apple has all of the parts in place, but either won’t sanction them or haven’t gotten around to it yet. Even better, Microsoft has a patent for a smartphone interface that is geared at businesses, homes, and even “emerging markets where the average user may have a handheld mobile communications device but not a home computer.” Indeed, this is a plausible future and, if Microsoft’s vision is implemented, a possible bridge across the digital divide (though I still hesitate on that).

So, I say that we forget the baseless contention that the future of computing will be overdetermined by the mobile UI (small displays, touch-screens, geolocation, etc.). Let’s also get rid of the ad hoc assumption that smartphones will always be cost prohibitive and lag with respect to computational power. There is no reason why we can’t marry the mobility of a smartphone with the robustness of desktop UI and create the best of both worlds.

Read Full Post »

Hey, Culligan man…where’s my internet?

My last blog post had a few comments I’d like to address…

@brad & andromeda:
I agree with andromeda: there are quite a few people who are angry about inequalities in the transportation sector, and, as a fellow Detroiter, I’m a little shocked at your Galtian position. Sure, people in Detroit have buses, but do they have a real opportunity to work north of 8 Mile?  Inequalities in transportation are a major source of economic inequality in metro Detroit. (For the record, my first library job was at Oakland University…a bus trip just shy of two hours from Wayne State.)

I suppose the crux of the equal access debate is whether information should be treated as a social utility, akin to electricity, water, or gas. Here’s a helpful analogy: As it stands, the rich and poor drink the same tap water from pretty much the same types of faucets. The rates are largely the same across a given geographic region, and the quality is fairly consistent. Granted, upper income brackets have the option to buy $70 bottled water or $1000 brushed nickel faucets, but these products only add social cachet and are, in the pragmatic sense, the same as the water and faucets in a low-income household. We can point to water as a utility that is functionally equal with respect to cost and access.

Extend this analogy to the debate at hand: Proffering mobile technologies as a means to bridge the digital divide is akin to telling low-income families, “Sorry, we can only provide you with two low-flow faucets per household, and a limit of 300L/day…but, don’t worry, the water is the same!” This is wrong. If we are to treat access to information as a utility, then we have to ensure the same quality in access points for all users. The water may be the same, but if you can’t drink as much as you need, then there is a real problem.

@librarianbyday
I agree, wholeheartedly. Whether we wire every home in America, or saturate every nook and cranny in wi-fi signals, a disparity will still exist. I worry that some of the technorati are too focused on technology qua consumption, which is the primary provenance of smartphones. What about the unemployed autoworker who needs to apply for jobs online? What of the high-school student who is still writing essays in longhand? What do we do for the single mother who wants to take online courses? Give each one a Blackberry?

@aprilintheorange
You’ll get your knife as soon as you can best me in a round of knifey-spoony.

Read Full Post »

A 3.5 inch gap

So, I’ve been following the debate between Bobbi Newman and my esteemed colleague Jason Griffey. In a nutshell, Bobbi argues that mobile broadband is an unacceptable substitute for broadband access and Jason disagrees. You should really read the full posts…very enlightening.

So, now, let me just get out…
*rummaging through pockets*
…my two cents.

First, beware of the futurists. Consider the following claims…

• “Sure, a laptop may provide a larger viewing area, but that’s just a formatting issue, sure to be resolved in the future.”
• “Fine, reading a novel on a 3.5″ smartphone screen may be hard for you to accept, but that’s the future of reading“
• “Sure, a computer with a keyboard may be better for writing a research paper now, but that’s an artifact left over from the long hegemony of print. In 10 years, there won’t be research papers…just websites.”
• “Fine, you may prefer to use both a laptop and a smartphone for different activities, ranging from in-depth research, sustained writing, and artistic creation on your Dell to tweeting, looking-up quick-facts, and managing your schedule on your iPhone….but, in the future, you’ll do everything on your smartphone.”

A fundamental problem arises when we claim that the future will be a radically different place, yet fail to acknowledge that the future has its own future, so to speak. Sure, mobile devices may become the standard, but that doesn’t equate to technological equality, because something else will come along to reinforce the technological divide. 3G wristwatches? Holographic displays? Retinal implants? We are currently pointing to inequalities and inefficiencies  that, to a great extent, exist only insofar as we can compare the status quo to some future possibilities, but this will always happen: We finally get radio signals to blanket the nation and realize we need to get radios in every home. We get radios in every home only to find television signals spreading throughout the country. We get televisions in every home just in time to need cable hookups. We finally get cable and cable-ready televisions  throughout the land and then find we need to hook up our computers. And so it goes. As long as there is technology, there will be portentous omens about the dire future facing us if we do not adopt a universal something…that will instantly be outmoded. (I follow this rule of thumb: the future is going to be awesome and it will be nothing like the fortune-tellers predict. I have yet to be proved wrong.)

Second, assume, for the sake of argument, that starting tomorrow, every square inch of the United States is dripping in free LTE access at a balls-to-the-wall -50 dBm signal strength. Okay, broadband is everywhere…now what? I mean, what is the best, least-expensive course of action for a low-income family of five that wants to connect?

• One “family” computer for internet access, writing, and research, and five inexpensive cellphones for calling, texting, tweeting, etc.?
• One shared smartphone and five inexpensive cellphones? (o_0)
• Five smartphones?
• Five netbooks?
• etc.

Lots of options, but it’s pretty clear that the first option is preferable. A 12.1 inch netbook and five pre-paid phones would probably run around $550 ($300 for the netbook, $50 per phone). Five smartphones would probably run between $750 and $1000 (between $150 and $200 per phone). Throw in government subsidies and we could knock a few hundred dollars off these costs. But, the point is that mobile technology is still prohibitively expensive to act as a suitable replacement. And, as to the futurists claims that prices will fall precipitously over the next 10 years for smartphones, the same holds true for inexpensive cellphones and netbooks. I see no reason to anticipate smartphones ever being the cheaper solution; downward market pressure will affect technology prices across the board.

Third, the entire debate revolves around choice, not technology. Even if we grant that wireless technologies are superior, the question remains: will low-income households have the option to subscribe to both wired and wireless broadband services as they see fit? The suburban hordes may be comfortable with their choices, from dial-up to DSL to cable to fiber to whatever is next, but so long as one social group has a smaller set of options than another, you cannot justifiably point to any equality.

For the record, this isn’t just an issue for low-income households. My household is within 5% of the national median. Our technology is limited to a couple of outdated G1 phones, an MSI Wind netbook, a three-year-old Macbook, and a Lenovo Ideapad on loan from work. I would love to buy an iPhone, iPad, or Droid…but groceries come first.

Read Full Post »