There was an article in the Wall Street Journal recently which discussed the cost of "smart phones" (am I supposed to put that in quotation marks, or is it just: smart phones?) It describes how families are having to cut back on other areas of their lives in order to afford their smart phones and the monthly service. One woman who was interviewed told how she and her husband had cut out going to restaurants and evening entertainment in order to budget for their smart phone plans. She said that she watched two television shows each day on her smart phone, and that was costly.
That's where the whole article lost me.
The whole aspect of budgeting, smart phones (we have none), and whatever else this WSJ writer was writing on: lost. I got stuck on this lady watching television on her phone.
A two-inch screen?
Wasn't it just a few years ago (greater than two, less than ten) that EVERYONE who had any finger on the pulse of trends and technology purchased at least one big-screen TV? (Once again, we Armstrongs missed that trend.)
So, I am wondering: if one has a big-screen, and a two-inch screen...
It doesn't even merit the question.
2 comments:
You are not alone in your head-shaking wonder at this conundrum. I do not understand this need to watch tv or movies on a microscopic screen. Nor do I find it necessary to carry the internet with me everywhere I go. Yes, I have a cell phone; I use it to make phone calls and send text messages. That's it. I watch tv and goof around on the internet at home, where I can do so on screens big enough not to require a magnifier.
When you are dumb as me, a smart phone is a welcome addition to kind of offset things.
Post a Comment