I don't believe that the majority of these shipped app device units are being used in a true computing capacity. In my day to day exposure, smart phones in particular don't tend to be used for much beyond the capabilities of earlier cell phones.

Especially among the younger crowd, who now seem to think that owning an iPhone 4 is the new minimum requirement for acceptance by their peers, the typical use seems to mostly comprise texting and music playback, with the occasional use of the camera for taking pictures of their friends while drunk. Facebook has definitely made significant inroads, but not too many people are using advanced features of Facebook or using more complex web applications from their smartphones. Some games are present, which are definitely more impressive than what previously existed as games on cell phones, but which mostly fill the same role: idle time wasters when on the go.

In my office environment, everyone has a smart phone. No one uses one as a primary email device, a primary web browsing device or a general office productivity device. The dominant use is scheduling, which requires syncronization with their computer-based scheduling, and email & web browsing while not in the office.

iPads have made some inroads as a computer replacement, with a few people using them as laptop-replacements for meeting notetaking and presentations, but still they're not being used as a primary productivity device.

I see these mobile devices, currently, as a supplement to personal computers which can be omni-present. Because they fit in a pocket and combine functionality with a required gadget (cell phones), more people are web browsing on the go or performing some tasks that previously may have required access to a computer. They still have syncing relationships to computers that are critical to many of their functions, and most functions still work better from a real computer. I doubt that any time soon you will see someone replacing their work PC with a smart phone, and the consumers that might replace a home PC with one probably didn't use that home PC very much.

This is the continuation of Facebook's rubber-band of privacy policy. First, they open up a grievous hole. Then, there's an inevitable tide of user outrage, usually coinciding with a Facebook group complaining about it and threatening mass exodus, creating tension on the rubber band. Eventually, the tension overcomes Facebook's inertia and motivates them to fix the hole they created, jerking things forward to be briefly in sync with sensible standards, until they make the next grievous hole and start the stretching process again.

It's a game of seeing how much they can get away with and for how long, only addressing their own problems with minimal efforts when a snapping point nears. Eventually, there will be an API-level prevention of this sort of behaviour, only to be replaced with a new massive security hole.

Most users will just continue blissfully onward posting photos of themselves and friends engaged in compromising situations while under the influence of a wide array of intoxicants, with every sordid detail shared freely with prospective employers. Even iron-tight platform security can't cure the kind of stupid that is Facebook's bread and butter.

It's interesting in that it's one of the cases where pursuit of an aesthetic has undermined functionality.

I work at a university where its Industrial Design program is a pretty big deal, but it's plagued with projects that completely fail in usability (ie, a brushed metal and fogged glass "chair" that will explode into twisted shrapnel if more than 20lbs of load is applied). Strangely, the completely nonfunctional pieces tend to be awarded higher grades because they're more "daring" or have more "vision". The mindset is often that concept of the design is most important, and it will be someone else's job to work out the crippling problems presented by the unrealistic choices made by the designer.

The odd piece is quite complete and very functional, but usually gets awarded a B for not having enough time spent obsessing over the finishing, because a critical design requirement is to spend dozens of hours sanding.

And what a target market that is!

White with iPhones is a way of advertising that you have the more expensive model, as it historically only exists as an option for the top-end model. All of the people who know the difference will be totally impressed when they see it and will respect you and/or want to have sex with you.

It's like wearing a fancy watch or paying for a drink with a hundred dollar bill at the bar. Visible signs of wealth trump personality and good looks.

There are a lot of different things that make people quit... for example, I didn't care much for the original herding-massive-quantities-of-cats-into-gigantic-raids-to-get-a-chance-at-one-piece-of-loot model that they used in the original and quit after becoming frustrated with the end game. Some of the changes that have been made since then might have convinced me to stick around if they'd come earlier.

There seems to be a rotating focus on some alienated portion of the player-base with each iteration, now with some bones being thrown back to the uberhardcore raid nuts, the very same group that the original version of WoW catered to and then abandoned progressively with each expansion. While attempting to juggle all of the competing interests of a diverse playerbase, they're definitely dropping some balls. Maybe the next expansion will have something that rekindles your interest, or maybe you'll remain free of the addiction like me and marvel at how much extra time you have to waste on other equally meaningless pursuits.

I took up alcohol.