Mobile phones basically haven't progressed since the Nokia 1110

It's the pinnacle of phones. Why try harder, asks Jacob Strauss.

There is a woman looking at me. I see her in the corner of my eye as I browse through t-shirts in a clothes shop. A glance over to her tells me that it’s not me but the thing in my hand that is inviting this attention. Her tone is of callous sarcasm; “nice phone”.

I may not be used to hearing this from complete strangers, but the general sentiment of this comment is often directed at me and my Nokia 1100. People regularly offer remarks when they see the strange old-fashioned device, usually something along the lines of how this isn’t the ‘90s anymore.

Like most phones from that early era of mobile technology, the Nokia 1100 does not have many of the features that we expect from something that fits in our pockets today. It doesn’t have a camera, access to the internet, a music player, a GPS, a touch screen or even a colour screen. But while smartphones boast all of these things and much more, I still think that the classic Nokia represented the peak in development of mobile phones.

The universally recognisable Nokia 3210, released in 1999, was the first mobile not to have a visible external aerial on the handset. This feat of technology may seem unimpressive now, but it created a phone that was actually “mobile”. We now had a pocket-sized device with which we could make phone calls and send text messages. Since this day – the golden age of mobile phones – all other technological advances have only really equipped the archetypal Nokia model with unessential extras.

The classic Nokia may not be able to do everything a modern phone can, but it does what it does very well. Firstly, they are incredibly reliable. When smartphones crash, they crash hard. A friend recently spent a whole day trying to bring his new Nokia Lumia back to life after it decided to stop working, but even after two separate trips through the washing machine and countless drops onto hard surfaces, my Nokia is still in a perfect working condition.

On top of this, classic Nokias have amazing battery lives (I charge mine about once a week), all the necessary apps (Calculator, stopwatch, alarm clock and reminders. You don’t need any others), and, for entertainment, Nokias offer the best game there is: Snake.

That list may appear small in comparison to what a smartphone offers, but I can’t see how much, if anything, the mind-blowing technology that has been piled into our phones has done to improve our lives. In fact, they’re worse than nothing: smartphones have an actively negative influence.

Smartphones make communication and entertainment so easy that real-life social interaction becomes the hard option and thus declines. And, as we can all testify, even when a smartphone-owner is reluctantly drawn from the virtual world into a social situation, their attention is constantly sucked back by beeping alerts and flashing lights.

Despite this dependence, outside the dark recesses of today’s youth, there aren’t many who would argue that their smartphone constitutes a necessity for life. When I present my argument against the superiority of the smartphone to people, their response is generally something like “but it just makes life easier, doesn’t it?” This, to some extent, I can see. Why carry around a camera, an iPod and a phone when you could own one device that operates all these functions? Who needs to own and know how to read maps when you have something in your pocket that will direct you anywhere? What could be more useful than having the internet – the entire accumulation of human knowledge – at one’s finger tips at all times?

So yes, maybe smartphones do indeed make life easier. But how easy do we want life to be? The day when we can fulfil all human activities – eat, sleep, earn, shop, reproduce and excrete – without leaving our high-tech toilet chair is not a day towards which we strive. Without some challenges, there isn’t much left.

Getty
Show Hide image

David Cameron: "Taking more and more refugees" is not the answer to the migration crisis

As the migrant crisis worsens, the Prime Minister refuses to allow desperate people into Britain, citing "peace" in the Middle East as his priority.

David Cameron says "taking more and more refugees" is not the answer to the global migration crisis.

Amid calls for the UK to allow more people in, to help ease the record numbers of migrants entering Europe and to provide asylum for desperate people attempting to cross the border, the Prime Minister insists upon keeping the UK's doors closed.

Preferring to focus on the situation in the Middle East, Cameron commented:

We are taking action across the board... the most important thing is to try to bring peace and stability to that part of the world . . . I don't think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees.

His words come on the day that harrowing photos of a young Syrian boy, washed up dead on a beach near the Turkish resort of Bodrum, have been published. The child was from a group of 12 Syrian refugees who drowned attempting to reach Greece.

The Labour leadership candidates are taking a different stance. In a much-praised speech this week, Yvette Cooper urged the UK to take in 10,000 more refugees, warning that a failure to do so would be, “cowardly, immoral and not the British way”.

Andy Burnham too has called for Britain to take more people in (or, in his words, "share the burden"): "This is a humanitarian crisis, not just a tedious inconvenience for British holidaymakers, as our government might have us believe."

Now read this week's leader on the migration crisis, "The wretched of the earth", calling for the UK to accept more asylum seekers

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.