As someone who grew up with a computer in the household in the 80s, I don't think the two situations are comparable. For one, a computer back then (and even today) is much less geared toward consumption (versus creation) than phones are. Second, being able to carry a phone with you and use it all day makes it a fundamentally different influence.
Still, there were cell phones in the 90s. Are the current smartphones that much more valuable than those early mobiles? Remember we are talking about 2 orders of magnitude here.
There were also PCs, and with Word Perfect and Lotus 123 you could do almost everything you do today with the latest office suite. At least almost everything of what the average user knows how to do.
Wait, the previous generation had no phones at all. Do you mean that today's generation use phones instead of computers? In that case, I understand your point.
This is a fallacy. Humans got by just fine without smartphones, Internet, electricity for thousands of years. While you could do just fine without those things today it is impractical. Times change (pun intended).
Not sure how you mean, does it count that I didn't have access to a computer at home until 1995? I didn't even get my own phone until 1998 or my own computer until 2002.
If this experience counts then I can say that I cannot remember being happier or less distracted back then.
You’re comparing household statistics to individuals.
Plus, totally anecdotal, but even if every house in the 90s had a PC (and it was really more like 40% around 1997), they weren’t used anywhere remotely like the TV in the household was. Like, a couple of teenagers maybe spent all day on it, and everyone had the tech savvy aunt or uncle, but it just was nothing like today where it’s typical to see grandma and grandpa FaceTiming.
Anecdotally I have friends from 20-26 and not a single one is without a computer. Phones getting more powerful doesn't eliminate the computer. In fact, I know way more people without a TV than without a comnputer, as the computer replaces the TV.
I do get your point, but I don't agree it supports the thesis that there's a "regression" happening.
Broadly, I could see two situations in which people only get a phone and have no computer: either "poor" countries, where they can't afford a computer and will get a phone that's better than nothing, and very affluent ones where they'll just get a phone or tablet and not care. Although I'm not sure that this second category has no computer.
While I do sympathize with this, and I think that it would more likely than not allow people to discover this curiosity by, as you say, being fascinated with how flexible phones would be, my point is somewhat different: this isn't "going back". Phones never were open. And I'm pretty sure that the people who can't afford a computer now couldn't afford one in the 90s.
As such, for me, this is more of a lost opportunity to progress rather than a regression.
I think this is like people in the 90s saying they'll never use a mobile phone. Or that they didn't want this newfangled 'internet', because their desk phone, written letters and books are fine.
Sure there's some people still living like that in modern society but they are really rare. Yet in those days hearing this sentiment was really common.
You could live perfectly without a PC in the 1990s, everything was available using paper, phone or personal service.
Yeah, but you have some point.
reply