Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

billions of people would not have smartphones.

But what’s the downside?




It seems like a privileged position to argue that there's no downside to people having smartphones. Many people are unable to regularly access decent laptops or desktops. Internet access is essential.

The Internet lets you communicate with friends and family, access a massive trove of knowledge quickly (freeing up education), discuss current events, and all manner of other things.

Even personally as a well to do American, have saved many, many thousands of dollars by acquiring learning resources online.


Hello FOMO. I grew up in a world where I had to pay by the minute to access the internet or use a phone. I did not have access to a computer 24/7.

Not having/using/carrying a smartphone is a conscious decision one can make with positive and negative aspects. Bruce Schneier points that out in his book Data and Goliath.


Not having a smartphone is much easier to do when you have regular access to a decent laptop or desktop. Many people in developing countries do not.

There is nothing "FOMO" about Internet access, it is extremely important. The world changed a lot from where we were 30 years ago.

The advantages of having a computer you can bring with you (be that a laptop, tablet, or phone) are enormous.

This is why I consider implying that billions of people having smartphones is a bad thing to be an extremely privileged position to take.


Internet access is important, but not a panacea without any disadvantages. Furthermore, a smartphone assumes a device with GSM and data while an other device with on-demand WLAN (such as a cheap tablet) might suffice.

TL;DR if you mean computers and internet access instead of smartphones, use the correct terminology.


Cellular networks are sometimes the only option for people in the developing world. I meant smartphones. Obviously, as I said, if you have a capable computer of any kind without Internet access, that is usually enough.


Internet access is essential.

Now that is the voice of privilege! Clean drinking water is essential. A smartphone is merely a luxury and one that is not without consequences - just as cigarettes are a luxury.


Internet access is not nearly a luxury in the same way cigarettes are.

Yes, it won't literally kill you not to have Internet, but that's a disingenuous argument. I did not say "essential to remain alive", I said "essential".

You are simply not at a level playing field if you do not have Internet access in 2018.

Family emergency while you're not at home? Resources to learn about the world, educate yourself? Increased job opportunities? Housing listings? Mobile financial services?

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/business/dealbook/melinda...

Internet access is most commonly going to be through smartphones in the developing world. Internet access is essential.

Saying it's a luxury in the same way cigarettes are is ludicrous.


Nothing is without consequences. Take water. People die daily from having too much water in their system.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: