During last winter break I got a new smartphone, HTC Desire（A8180/G7）. After buying it, I meant to jot something down, and somehow kept thinking I already had…… Today it occurred to me again, so I’ll just toss off a few casual remarks while I’m at it.
I hadn’t actually planned to change phones. It started because my mother wanted a new one, and I helped her choose. At first I wanted to pick something like the classic Nokia 5230, but after seeing my parents buy themselves a brand-new 64-bit laptop, I changed my mind. I asked them why they had bought a 64-bit machine, and they said they had been talked into it by the sales clerk, who claimed it was “the most advanced.” Since that’s how it is, rather than chasing that empty, illusory kind of “advanced,” why not keep up with fashion in things that are truly advanced?
Indeed, although 64-bit personal computers have been around for many years, 32-bit machines have remained the mainstream, so 64-bit cannot be called un-“advanced.” But the advanced and the ahead-of-its-time are not necessarily good things. Even now, there are still large numbers of software programs without 64-bit-compatible versions, and my parents also don’t understand the difference at all, so even after finally learning how to find software online, they often can’t get it installed. More crucially, for the way my parents use computers, 64-bit hardly shows much advantage at all. Perhaps for people who need engineering drafting, scientific computing, or large-scale software development, 64-bit computers have obvious superiority, but for us they won’t improve much. The main benefit of a 64-bit architecture is that it can address more memory and is suited to computing over much larger data sets, but it is not necessarily more efficient when performing simple tasks. Even if 64-bit systems do in fact improve efficiency and will gradually replace 32-bit systems, at present this replacement is basically only a quantitative change; it has not yet brought about a significant transformation. It is nowhere near as momentous as the shift from 16-bit to 32-bit systems. For a 16-bit DOS system supported at most only 640K of memory—indeed, even a doctoral dissertation might exceed its capacity, let alone program code and electronic data. From 640K to 4GB is an important leap. But now the leap from 4GB to 16EB (ten billion times GB) seems still too far ahead of its time. 640K may not be enough to hold a thick book, but if the computer’s function is only to handle data like books, after all that still would not exceed the M scale, and with reasonable software use of memory, 640K can still be usable. But if one needs to process high-definition images and video and the like, then an upgrade becomes unavoidable. And now, 4G is already enough to hold several high-definition films; even if one particularly clear or particularly long film might not fit, if the computer’s function is only to handle image-like data, then the G scale is enough. If one must upgrade from a 32-bit system, then the computer will be used to handle some brand-new kind of thing. And such a thing has, at least for now, not yet entered the horizon of our daily lives. The mark of the transformation from 16-bit to 32-bit was the rise of Windows 95/98; only then was the command-line system truly replaced by the graphical operating system. The move from the K scale to the G scale precisely symbolizes this turn from “pure text” to “multimedia,” but the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit has, at least at present, by no means laid the groundwork for a new turn. Perhaps in the near future, interfaces will break out of the realm of pictures and images, become holographic, and present themselves to the senses of the whole body; in that case, the 4G scale would certainly be inadequate, and architectures such as 64-bit, 128-bit, 256-bit, and so on would then display revolutionary significance. But at least as things stand now, for our daily lives, 64-bit computers, besides being more expensive and harder to use, have not brought any revolutionary change.
Truly revolutionary technological changes are often a qualitative leap rather than a mere quantitative accumulation. Of course, I never go around saying such empty phrases as “the accumulation of quantitative change leads to qualitative change.” The unilateral increase of quantity may prepare the ground for a qualitative change, or it may be nothing at all. It is easy to be wise after the event and find a quantitative basis behind every qualitative change, but understanding a qualitative change cannot be obtained from the accumulation of quantities. Moreover, important creation does not necessarily have to be rooted in ever higher, faster, stronger linear growth; on the contrary, certain constraints, and the new positioning brought about by them, are what produce transformation. For example, what is the most significant change of Weibo compared with earlier blogs? As the name suggests, it is more “micro”——a traditional blog post could be tens of thousands of characters long, and of course could also be a hundred or so characters, but on Weibo you can only write a hundred or so characters. Which platform is more “advanced”? And why did such a limitation instead make Weibo lead a new trend? In short, we cannot simply understand a certain technology as a tool fixed there for me to use, reducing its meaning to “efficiency.” Every technology always implies a certain way of life, implies one side of the everyday world of interaction.
Simply increasing computing speed and expanding memory does not necessarily mean anything worth mentioning. If one is to speak of what is truly “advanced” lately, one has to pay attention to smartphones and tablet computers. Both of these are thanks to Apple’s creation. Of course, Apple did not invent the smartphone, and certainly not the tablet computer. But a technological “innovation” is not an original “idea,” not a theory, and not even the first instance; rather, it is what truly changes people’s life-world (in general, that means it has been marketized). Schumpeter’s theory of “innovation” treats innovation (Innovation) as something beyond the category of “technology,” as an economic concept. But from the standpoint of our philosophy of technology, innovation still belongs to the category of technology; only, what is called technology has never merely been those ready-made objects. The meaning of technology is the possibility of human life; technology is the mode in which human nature unfolds. According to this view of technology, a “technological” innovation in the true sense could not possibly be narrowly understood as the construction of a new object; it is rather the realization of a new life.
The graphical operating system was actually also an invention of Apple’s, but in the end the credit and glory were taken by Microsoft. That cannot be blamed solely on bad luck; Microsoft really was better in terms of timing, marketing, strategy, and so on. Up to now, Apple has finally turned things around, relying not only on its technical creativity, but also on marketing and a keen grasp of timing.
The release of the iPad best demonstrates Apple’s grasp of timing. I remember that when the iPad had just been released, it was practically met with a torrent of criticism——it was just a magnified iPod, or an iPhone that couldn’t make calls; its performance was quite good, yes, but it still couldn’t compare with a netbook, and the system it ran was even lower than the already existing iPhone’s…… Why would such a machine, so lacking in novelty, be confidently launched by Apple at that moment? The result proved that the iPad was indeed a success. It opened up the entire tablet-computer market, seized the absolute initiative (occupying more than 80% of the market), and once again became the leader that set the standard. The key to its success lies precisely in its grasp of timing. Tablet computers had already existed long before, and there were even ideas for them in the 1960s. But earlier tablet computers had always been regarded as an extension of the laptop, closer to the computer than to the phone, and the significance of the touchscreen was understood more as handwriting input rather than true touch. And after Apple redefined the smartphone and the meaning of the touchscreen, in theory the traditional computer manufacturers could have immediately switched to the tablet-computer idea, while other handset makers that had successfully followed Apple in smartphones might also have immediately plunged into the tablet-computer market. But the result was that this first-mover advantage was once again seized by Apple.
In the “tablet computer” entry on Baidu Baike, Bill Gates’s old “definition” is quoted, saying that a tablet computer should be x86 architecture, and since the iPad is ARM architecture, it simply cannot be called a tablet computer. That is obviously nonsense. Who says a “personal computer” has to be x86 architecture? It was Apple that truly opened up the personal computer market back then, but apart from the most recent few generations, Apple’s computers had always adhered to non-x86 architectures. Does that mean they were not computers? The reason x86 architecture became the standard was the monopoly position of Microsoft + Intel. They occupied the entire computer market, and thus became the lawmakers. But today’s smartphone and tablet-computer markets have long since ceased to be something Microsoft and Intel can legislate for.
Why has this market been opened up now? This is closely related to the development environment of the Internet. If it were not for being able to get online anytime and anywhere, and if the only purpose were to carry a laptop around with you, then tablet computers would not have much significance. The same is true of smartphones. If they were only for sending text messages and making calls, plus serving as a navigation device and a game console, then smartphones would not amount to much either. They may perhaps provide a prettier text-messaging interface, a more portable camera, and navigation equipment, but these too are merely changes in degree, with no qualitative addition. In fact, smartphones have not merely changed the efficiency with which we used to use mobile phones and other always-on devices; more importantly, they have changed our way of life.
It is said that more than one-third of smartphone users in the United States (iPhone and Android) “go on social networking sites before getting out of bed.” People’s way of life starts changing before they even get up. The custom of reading newspapers at breakfast and in the toilet has persisted through the impact of radio, television, and the Internet, but smartphones are most likely to end the newspaper’s position. For example, a Google survey shows that 39% of users take smartphones to the toilet; software and the Internet have already penetrated every corner of people’s lives.
If it were not for the rise of the entire Web 2.0 era represented by Facebook and Twitter (which Levinson calls “new new media”), then smartphones and tablet computers themselves would not bring about such a transformation. Of course, even if those new websites had appeared without being accompanied by the development of Internet access technologies, the transformation would still be incomplete. Manufacturing processes, social relations, the pace of life, and various inventions are all mutually tied to one another. An overly premature development at one link often runs into a wall or is forgotten; but once the rhythm is correctly hit, resonance may be triggered, causing rapid and enormous influence.
I have to rush to finish an assignment today, so I’ll stop ranting here for now. If I get the chance later, I’ll come back and talk about my experience using it and such.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply