I bought a T-Touch this week, it’s my first Android handset. It’s not a HTC Desire, but it is an affordable and feature packed 7″ Android tablet phone.

Wow, I know this is a Telstra blog, but did you want to advertise any more blatantly. Every single device you listed, was already old news when the device hit the market, with other companies having a similar device out for months, if not years…..

I’m pretty sure I outdo all of this; I live in a house with 10 roommates, all of whom are either computer engineers, IT students, or computer science student, or a mix of the three (yay for double degrees!). We have an old fingerprint scanner from my old laptop has been added to the front door (as well as a manual lock). Rather than pay for a t-box/t-hub, we have a linux box set up with all of our computer hard drive’s to watch movies/music on all of them, as well as make calls with a headset. I have a jailbroken iPhone which I can use as a remote control for our PS3 and the linux box (without the jailbreak this would be impossible.

So in all the advertising for our products, where is the talk difference between addiction or evolution? Seems to be just a comment to catch reader’s eye.

A proper subject would be how it is more likely that people who age between 10-15 know that there are more than 2 operating systems, 15-25 know what operating systems are, 25-35 know what version they may have, 35-50 can tell the difference between mac and pc, left and right click, but 50+ are lucky to know what windows or mac are. This is not a jab at any of their intelligence, nor to say they are not technically able, I’ve had 90 year olds capable of navigating a computer and it’s abilities better than I, but a general view.

With different ages comes a different depth and immersion of technology. And in their day the “idiot box” was the “adult” view of television and technology, now it’s seeming to jump to something different and twisted; it seems not everyone is capable of knowing how to “change the channel” between different AVI inputs and technology is now for more than the those addicted to the “idiot box”, but there is still that view. Especially because those that know how to fix things, generally want them working NOW which persuedes them to learn, because may be a little desperate and addicted. There is also the issue of medical facilities popping up for those addicted, and phrases like “minecrack” and “wow-addict” appearing in language to describe people and their addictions.

All these important issues glossed over by catchphrases and marketing ploys; it seems you only have four lines in your entire story that gives any meaning, and that ends with asking us about “newness”, spawning the idea of spending in our heads. In answer to your question, technology is addictive as alcohol or gambling, it gives a challenge and personal win after use (at times), and enters the user into a whole world where they can do whatever their intelligence and knowledge will allow, without the same limits as reality. But it relys on the person to become addicted, it is not that technology itself that is addictive; a recovering alcoholic will always be a recovering alcoholic. But there is also the portion where technology could be said to be a way of life, it’s something addicts cannot avoid.

And I’m sure the woman who shook her child to death for interrupting her farmville was not after something with “newness”, and our sporty linux box is a used and torn box that is at least 3 years old (on average; different parts with different years), and as I said the finger swiper is used out of my laptop, which is now about 3 years old. Other boxes we have around the house (we have about 3 per person) can max out to 10 years in some parts. And our two TVs age from 3 years old to 8 years. So it is not a matter of “newness at all”, it is a matter of use and control between reality and technology.

As a closing comment I believe that no matter the age, evolutionary stage, shop-addicted or tech-addicted a person is, they will see that this is nothing but a poorly disgused marketing ploy, covering each and every “target” sales item. It disappoints me that with such an interesting topic has been wasted like this. And as I watch the feedback spawn, starting with Sales consultants and marketing teams, and ending with people like myself who don’t recieve email prompts to improve the article’s coverage.