“The iPhone is an object that we buy. It’s made by Apple, which is a company that wants to make money. But that’s not how I look at this. Call me naive and romantic, but I dropped cynicism a long time ago. Think about it this way: there are people who found a way to make a tiny computer that’s always with us. Then, there are other people – indie developers and big companies – who make software that can help us work and live better. We get the chance to experience all this and tweak our lifestyles with the aid of apps. And even if some of these people are driven by greed or questionable motives, the end result is that today we can use a phone to be healthier.

I can track and optimize my lifestyle with an iPhone. An entire ecosystem of apps, services, and devices capable of monitoring my nutrition, weight, fitness activity, and even sleep uses my iPhone as the central, private hub that I control. On the iPhone, everything is collected and visualized by a single Health app, which can be connected to more apps. As a cancer survivor who wants to improve his lifestyle because of a newfound appreciation of life, all this is incredible”

— Life After Cancer: How the iPhone Helped Me Achieve a Healthier Lifestyle – MacStories

Federico’s story is exactly the sort of thing that interests me when we talk about technology. It’s not about the specs, or the branding, or the price tag for the most expensive model. The ways technology can change our lives, to improve them, to utterly transform them—that’s simply incredible.

Andy Ihnatko has filed his column from Mobile World Conference, the playground where all the biggest, shiniest, and priciest mobile gizmos are announced, save for the ones from Apple. Unlike most of the other reports from MWC, Andy is focusing on something beyond the glitzy: really good, really cheap consumer technology. Why? Because some of it is surprisingly good, and also because

“[T]here are so many people in the US and around the world who just flat-out can’t afford the stuff with top-of-the-line specs, or even the midpriced stuff. The fetishization of the premium market often makes it seems as if there’s a sign hanging on the door of the consumer tech world that reads ‘Go be poor somewhere else.’ That’s immensely troubling.”

All the talk about the $5,000 to $20,000 (or beyond) Apple Watch Edition seems to have awoken a dormant populist streak in some tech folks—myself included. It wasn’t that long ago when the rhetoric around technology was that of liberation, and the goal was to get it in as many hands as possible. While the price of useful, and reasonably long-lasting computer hardware has dropped, even the mid-tier is priced too high for huge swath of the world… or just the United States. All the profit is at the high-end of the market, though many companies still offer “cheap” models. And, of course, to make up for the cheap prices, you often end up with privacy-ruining crapware on your new machine.

There’s nothing democratizing about super-expensive consumer technology, and I say this as someone who has happily shelled out the money for Apple hardware, and will do so again in the future. Yet, I have no qualms about suggesting to friends who need new phones and computers to get cheaper, equally functional products. [1] The WinBook TW700 tablet Andy mentions is fascinating, and I’m almost curious enough to drop $60 just to try a Windows 8.1 tablet that I don’t even need. (Almost.)

The accusations of elitism thrown at certain Apple fans are not off the mark. A lot of us love our expensive, shiny, Apple hardware. There’s nothing wrong with that. When we continue to insist that the expensive, shiny Apple hardware we own is the best solution for everyone, and to attack the taste of people who deign to use Android, Windows, a Chromebook, or run Linux, we add nothing to the conversation. As technology journalists and writers, when we act as though our personal choices are the only correct choice, either by direct statement or implication, we’re failing at our job. I can’t put it better than Andy does, which is probably why he’s made a career out of his technology writing: “technology is supposed to improve and elevate everybody.”

Let’s not lose sight of that before the next major product announcement.

Mobile computing analyst Brian S. Hall, of Apple Boo Boo makes a good point about the pricing talk around Apple Watch: [1]

As Tim Cook’s Apple has gone even more upscale, emphasizing high-fashion and literally gold adornments, eagerly adopting the Vertu business model and taking it global, I have noted a rising tendency by the cheerleader blogs to sneer and mock those who don’t choose Apple.

Thing is, Apple may not necessarily be the right choice for everyone.

Oh, AND ALMOST EVERYONE ON THE PLANET CANNOT AFFORD APPLE!

If there’s one thing that’s rubbed me the wrong way about the endless speculation over the high-end of Apple Watch pricing, it’s the subtext that the absurd sticker price for gold Apple Watches is some sort of boon to Apple in its competition with the other smartwatch players, if not the industry as a whole. Shame on Motorola for not offering some multi-thousand dollar Android Wear smartwatch in gold, right? Even John Gruber’s written eye-rolling over a covered micro-USB port on the back of Sony’s latest smartwatch comes from that same smug place. There’s something very useful about being able to charge your device with a standard cable you can get for a couple bucks at the gas station, even if it’s less elegant than a magnetic charging cable.

The griping over Apple having the audacity to sell a multi-thousand dollar watch is just as obnoxious. Remember, Apple’s entry level price for the Watch, $349, is only $100 more than the Moto 360. Of course, even a $99 Pebble is out of reach for many people, too. But, Apple’s not in danger of becoming Vertu any time soon. If the iPhone 7 comes in a $40,000 18-karet Rose Gold option to match the Apple Watch 3, with a $10,000 alligator leather case option, then I’ll worry. Apple Watch is one product, it’s untested, and it’s unknown. It’s a big, expensive experiment to see if Apple can use fashion to put a (potentially) useful gizmo on people’s wrists, and we don’t know how it will turn out.

I don’t agree with Brian’s assessment in a separate piece that Apple Watch is “a showpiece. And you buy it to show it off.” Having used a Pebble for the better part of a month, I find there’s something to this wearables/smartwatch thing, even if it’s difficult to articulate. (And even if the Pebble’s functionality on iOS is crippled.) The functionality a smartwatch provides isn’t essential, but it is useful. How do you communicate the utility of a new kind of device to a new audience who neither knows, nor cares, about it?

I know it’s hard to explain why I haven’t yet shoved my Pebble in a drawer until the new OS comes out. I’m trying, though, and hope to have something to say about it in a future essay. It’s hard to understand the utility of a wearable device until you’ve tried one. This is the hurdle that smartwatch makers need to overcome. The fashion-focused marketing of Apple Watch might end up clever in retrospect: putting something of great, but hard to explain utility on people’s wrists through the sheer power of fashionability. It’s a crazy move, and who knows if it will work? It’s possible, though, that once someone straps Apple Watch on their wrist, no matter what model, they’ll find their reasons to keep it on there change from fashion to utility.

Or, they’ll take it back to the store in a week and get their money back. We don’t know yet.

Whatever happens with Apple Watch and it’s crazy price tags, Brian’s fundamental point remains:

Pull back any judgments you have on those who don’t have the same as you.

Whether someone has a $10,000 Apple Watch Edition, a $349 Apple Watch Sport, a $199 Android Wear gizmo, or a $99 Pebble, or a free-with-contract prepaid flip phone and no smartwatch, they probably have a valid reason for their choice. Us Apple people need to stop being such jerks about how good the company we give money to is, and how terrible everyone else is. It’s helping nobody.

Today, Pebble announced Pebble Time, a $199, color e-ink smartwatch, and an associated Kickstarter, that earned over $5 million within the first six hours. Pebble Time looks like a nice piece of kit, but what really intrigues me about the new Pebble is the UI. Instead on focusing on notifications, Pebble is focusing on a timeline, with the ability to scroll ahead to what’s coming up, or scroll back to see what you may have missed. As The Verge describes it:

Move down the timeline, and you might see an upcoming calendar appointment or flight information. Move back, and the timeline can show how many steps you took yesterday or the score of last nightís playoff game. The “present” or default setting of the timeline displays things like stock information, current weather, and, of course, the current time.

It’s a clever rethinking of what a smartwatch can be. Supposedly the timeline UI will be coming to the older Pebbles, but there’s no timeframe. Suffice it to say, whatever my decision is about keeping or dropping Pebble after a month, I’ll be keeping the device around so I can try the new interface when it’s available. There’s value of in providing context-sensitive and time-sensitive information, and a smartwatch is a platform well suited for that. Having your wrist buzz instead of your phone beeping with every notification you get, not so much.

The three main smartwatch platforms are differentiating themselves on the roles a smartwatch could, potentially, play in out lives. Android Wear is focused around notifications, especially ones from Google Now. I’ve had bad luck with Google Now, but Andy Ihnatko, whose judgement I trust, swears by it and his Moto 360. Apple Watch is positioning itself as a communications and lifestyle device. Over on Twitter, Zac Cichy, and @OhmDee seem convinced that Apple Watch will usher in a new era of voice messaging to replace SMS and other forms of text chat. [1] It’s too early to tell, and we might get a bigger, clearer picture whenever Apple holds their Watch event.

Pebble’s timeline interface a very compelling alternative to both of these concepts. I’ve long maintained that context awareness is the future of computing. Rethinking the notification-based, interruption-based paradigm of smartwatch—and smartphone—interaction as a temporal stream is a sound one. My hope is that they’ll be able to execute on it, and have the third-party developer support needed to get the right data in there at the right time…

..And that they can make it work with iOS, which may be the biggest hurdle.

In case you missed it, Lenovo has been in the news for pre-installing adware known as Superfish that has a huge, exposed security flaw that “exposes Lenovo users to man-in-the-middle attacks.” Truth it, it was only a matter of time before something like this happened to a major PC manufacturer. PC hardware has been commoditized, and margins in the PC business are razor thin. In order to make up lost profits, many PC manufacturers load up their machines with junk in exchange for a few extra bucks profit on each unit sold. Apple was making ads about this exact thing back in 2009, and now Microsoft offers “Signature Edition” PCs through their stores with the promise of a clean Windows install. The only other way to get a clean Windows installation is to do it yourself, which is why I’m surprised it only took until now for a major PC manufacturer to get bitten in the ass by their own profit scrounging.

Lenovo’s mistake (to put it politely) is one of the biggest violations of customer trust in an industry not known for being trustworthy. Yet, Lenovo is also a victim—the commoditization of PC hardware has made it easier, and cheaper, for people to get a decent computer that lasts longer, while making it harder for hardware companies to make a decent profit. With PC shipments dropping, quarter over quarter, it’s that much harder to keep things afloat. Computers are already something that the average person has little trust in, with endless software updates, pre-installed trialware, outsourced tech support, and pushy sales people… so what’s a little adware in an already untrustworthy relationship, right?

That’s the Catch–22 underlying this whole situation. A PC hardware company that values trust must either charge a premium or earn slimmer margins. Either way, they’re competing with cheaper, commodity hardware sold by companies with less scruples, or at least less scrupulous shareholders. Yet, inexpensive commodity PC hardware makes it easier for socio-economically disadvantaged people to get on the Internet, and become part of the digital economy. A world where one needs a middle-class income to afford a basic personal computer is a dangerous one that can lead to further social and economic inequity. This isn’t to say owning a computer is enough—It’s not, but it’s a big part.

My hope for the outcome of the Superfish fiasco is that hardware companies will think harder about the junk they load up their products with. We’ll never be free of PCs being sold with unwanted and unnecessary software. The subsidization of commoditized hardware is a frustratingly necessary evil to get computers in the hands of more people who need them. Because of that alone, I don’t think anything is going to change after Superfish. The value of customer trust in the PC hardware business just isn’t worth more than what crapware companies are willing to pay to have their products pre-installed. The end result? A two-tiered computing experience: a secure, crapware free one for the people who can pay for a “signature experience” (or a Mac), and a spammy, insecure one for the poor. At least it’s an improvement over the company that offered free, ad-supported computers in 1999. [1]