Merriam Webster says that retrograde means "having or being motion in a direction contrary to that of the general motion of similar bodies." In the simplest sense, it is not moving with the crowd. As (likely) Francis Phillip Wernig purportedly said:
"The person who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The person who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been before."
Thus, in retrograde one might find themselves out of synch with the crowd, but perhaps to their benefit? Recently, two articles led me to think about technology retrograde.
There was a time that the smartphone was a matter of some envy; the capabilities that they bring, the access to the internet, the ease of email, IM, and voice. The evolution to ubiquity is noted in A Computer in Your Pocket on ScienceMusuem.com. It notes the divergence of the 1990s when we merely had "phones on which . . . (we) could talk and send texts." Many of us then also had a "personal organizer" that stored data and details, calendars, and more. We called them personal digital assistants or PDAs. It was light years from the 1980s and our dependence on little notebooks, pagers, and payphones. But, those born in the last fifty years have little experience with such a Luddite world.
The cellphone of the 1990s was a minimalist experience in retrospect but was incredibly high-tech at the time. And, as a side note, they were notably expensive to own and operate. As that decade proceeded, those PDAs evolved to astounding feats like synching with our computers and even accessing the Internet. But, the evolution to a "3G," third-generation cellular network capability set the stage for today as the PDA, phone, and PC merged into the smartphone (as many of us are not yet onto 5G and yet look towards 6G).
An early hybrid device, the Blackberry, came upon us in 1999 and then came into its own early in the 21st century. It was perhaps made famous by presidential contenders like Al Gore and Barak Obama as they texted and interacted on the web. In an odd twist, a campaign staffer once tried to give John McCain credit for inventing the Blackberry. It is a somewhat bizarre world we live in sometimes. Al Gore invented the Internet and John McCain enabled the Blackberry? Both false, but intriguing nonetheless. People perhaps want to appear tech-savvy and able? Or, as we said back in the day "hip" and "with it?"
The Blackberry was immensely successful with its QWERTY keyboard and ease of use. Companies invested millions in emulating it, and for a time a phone with a mechanical QWERTY keyboard was a distinguishing novelty. But, in 2008, the iPhone burst on the scene and the smartphone's dominance began. Blackberry struggled from its peak of 20% of the world smartphone market to its decision to yield the field completely in 2022. There are other similar examples of marketplace death, but this one of marketplace primacy to insignificance is illustrative.
Cell phones have become ubiquitous. Pew reports that 97% of Americans own one. I recently was questioned about why we have phones in our mediation rooms - "Everyone has a cell phone, don't they?" Similarly, the smartphone is the dominant type, with 85% of Americans owning one. It is rare to see someone in a meeting without one. The truly irreplaceable among us usually carry two smartphones, which has baffled some in the age of devices capable of hosting multiple phone numbers. However, there are issues of device security, data connections, and more that various companies enforce.
Some display their phones in holsters, perennially on the ready. Some smartphones are larger than others. There are various operating systems, attributes, complaints, and criticisms. Many people have unwavering brand loyalty for their operating system or hardware choice, rivaling even their loyalty to some school or football organization. Some base their loyalty on particular attributes, and others are merely lodged in a habit they loath to break. It is very tough to get used to operating one, as there are a myriad of intricacies and tricks associated with each. Thus, changing brands is a major challenge for people, particularly us older folks.
In short, however, these smartphones have enabled us to do things that still amaze us. We can literally carry the world around with us. All information in the world is at our fingertips.
Statista reports that the American market is dominated by Android and Apple. They each had about half of the domestic market in March 2021; Apple - 52%, Android - 47.4. The Microsoft and Blackberry shares were each trending at that time toward obsolescence. From a hardware perspective, Apple has a worldwide share of about 14% and Samsung about 20%. Each is less than the "other" category of about 33%. Thus, in America, essentially a two-horse race, but globally there are a great many devices out there, a variety of choices regarding hardware and software, and a ubiquity of smartphones.
The Blackberry lesson is intriguing. Somehow, over the years, it and other similarly dominant brands have lost significant market share, or retired in defeat. And, in the midst of the small screen dominance of the convenient smartphone, one might wonder what is next. Will the dominant operating systems and hardware choices of today prevail in ten years? Or, is there some new and attractive alternative just around the corner ready to issue its siren call to our tech cravings?
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reports that some people are Deciding to Ditch their Smartphones. They are retreating from the ready social media access, email, and games. The reversion is to simpler devices capable of only phone calls and text messages (without the ease of the QWERTY keyboard). Some will remember the days when texting required many buttons pushed because each number on the keypad also represented multiple letters. Texting required perhaps three presses of the same key to obtain the desired letter. There was therefore then a language of texting, driven by the keyboard constraint. Today, we cling to that language by habit, but no longer need it in the age of smartphones, their keyboards, and verbal assistants like Alexa and Siri. As one might say, "LOL."
But, despite the ease that smartphones have brought, some people are fed up with living in a world in which time is squandered with endless "scrolling away." One quoted critic said
"Everyone is missing out on real life. I don't think you get to your death bed and think you should have spent more time on Twitter, or reading articles online."
She also notes that "Being constantly connected to lots of services creates a lot of distractions, and is a lot for the brain to process."
How much time? The BBC quotes a "recent study (that) found that the average person spends 4.8 hours a day on their handset." In a 24 hour day, assuming 8 hours is spent sleeping, that equates to about 30% (4.8/16) of our waking day. There are challenges with such access, with some suffering from a cell phone addiction. With that in mind, one might query similarly to the subject of the BBC article: "what else could I do" with that time?
The story reports that some are therefore now eschewing the smartphone, while others are foregoing cellular telephones completely. In a world of instant contact, alerts, and accessibility, are any of us capable of putting ourselves first? There is a very real potential for this constant contact and access to be a source of significant stress, as medicine has begun to acknowledge. How often do you turn off your phone (or at least the alerts) and ensconce in tech-free time? How often do you escape the email, Twitter, Facebook, messages, and more? Would we feel better if we did so?
One psychologist cited by the BBC contends that:
"there is a strong link between heavy device usage and relationship issues, quality of sleep, our ability to switch off and relax, and concentration levels."
In short, these devices may be enabling behavior that damages us. In Chatbots and Friends (February 2020), I reminisced on the challenges of a technology-driven existence. I noted:
"Timothy Leary encouraged us in the 1960s to 'turn on, tune in, drop out.' Perhaps in that age, this was sound advice. But the converse seems a better adage for today. It seems we would all benefit if we could instead "turn off, tune out, and drop in." There is value in human interaction."
I acknowledge that sentiment again here. Perhaps those who are abandoning the lure of smartphones and their distractions and pressures have it right. Perhaps we should all consider again the "turn off, tune out, and drop in" corollary? It might be in our best interest to return to a time of less contact and accessibility?
In a subsequent story, the BBC highlighted a 17-year-old "lured by the low price" (less than $11.00) of a more rudimentary "brick phone." She describes the manner in which her previous "smartphone" distracted her and how she "didn't get as much work done." She believes she will remain with the brick, and not return to the "smart" environment. She says she is "more proactive" with the brick. And, read that again, this is a 17-year-old. Will the young and innovative lead us back to the Luddite age of more limited connectivity? Can they show us the light?
This BBC article claims that "dumb phones" are increasing in popularity demonstrated by the searches for such hardware on the Internet and the annual sales ("one billion units"). These are said to indicate both the interest in retrograde as well as its pursuit. Pluses of the dumbphone are said to include "battery life and durability," but the proponents are seemingly as driven by the decrease in distraction, avoiding the "addict(ion) to liking, sharing, commenting, or describing." In short, there is some population that has entered retrograde, is disenchanted with the smartphone world, and is seeking greater simplicity.
These prospects have to be on the minds of those who make and support these pocket computers. Where will the next decade take us? Will we see retrograde flourish?