If you had merely stated that it was a "compromise", you would of course be correct, as we already agreed. However, describing it as a "kludge compromise" carries a negative implication, which is not merely an "objective truth" nor representative of a general consensus- it's your opinion.
No, it is merely an emphasis. A matter of degree. I could have said a very, very, very poor compromise to the same effect and just used more words to do it.
The glass-front phones are not just a compromise, they are a very, very, very poor compromise (i.e "kludge") for a long list of reasons, including diametrically opposed requirements of a touch screen interface and a device that can be held to one's face and talked into, thus putting that very touch interface in one's face, literally.
Again, its objective truth. It's physics. No glass-front brick format touch phone manufacturer can somehow magically escape this obvious reality, all they can do is come up with various unreliable methods of trying to disable the interface whenever they detect (or so they hope) the phone being used as a phone and not a smudgy underpowered computer with an imprecise interface that features 70% error rate for anyone with fingers thicker than a toothpick who is trying to type on its "virtual keyboard".
Kludge. Objective truth.
No, I didn't. The way that you said it I interpreted as either (a) you implying that many people held similar opinions ...
They do. I personally know many who are tired of the lack of choice in this matter.
or (b) that many people's usage patterns backed up your assertion, even if they didn't realise it.
Again true, a lot of people (if not a majority) are trend followers and are easily swayed by marketing and in fact never actually needed "smart phones" to begin with...
If you do not believe me, take some time to look at how average people around you use their iPhones and what not. Their typical usage pattern involves loading a lot of free apps and some commercial trendy apps, all within a month of purchase after which time none of these apps are ever opened again and the phone is used again only as a phone or a texting device. Many don't even have email set up on their "smart phones".
So clearly marketing and telco's need for extra income from "smart phone plans" is a major driving force here and the usage patterns would be quite different without the multi-billion dollar sales push by gizmo peddlers.
This is somewhat disingenuous. You claim that you are posting your personal opinion, but you phrase such things as if they are representative of generally-accepted consensus and/or trend, or "objective" truth (see above).
No, it is you who are getting all mixed up. I simply stated the truth, which has many aspects. There is the objective truth, as in the compromise aspects of the touch screen phones. There is the subjective truth as to my personal preferences. And then there is the high probability of the truth in the optimal patterns of usage for many phone users, many of whom do not even realize it, but the exact numerical breakdown of which is unknown.
It is the fact that I did all three in one post is what seems to bother you so greatly.