Convenience means we'll never ditch our mobiles

9 July 2009 | By Jessica Sandin

It feels almost inconceivable these days for the world to go round without mobile devices. We’d be forever hanging around street corners waiting for people who couldn’t tell us they were running late, not to mention not being able to detach ourselves as we’d have to make all our calls from fixed lines.

At the moment, when recession, thrift and environmental concerns are strong forces of the day, the guilt about the trappings of modern life is getting stronger. Yet such concerns often don’t measure up to the force of convenience. No mobiles would mean no more conference calls from coffee shops or business deals in the backs of taxis. We might have to actually speak to people rather than text. How on earth would we cope?

It’s clear, of course, that we would. Life would be a little less efficient, perhaps, and a little more inflexible, but everything was working quite alright without mobiles just ten years ago. Yet if we’d really be perfectly able to do without, what makes us so dependent? A range of factors have an impact, but perhaps the most important is convenience.

It’s easy to underestimate how keen we are on things that make life that bit easier. In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a great hardship to get up and switch TV channels, yet sofa-life without a remote somehow seems unbearable. This love of convenience has a slight tinge of guilt: when does it become mere laziness? That means mobiles are pretty safe. As tools for calls and text, with handy built-in phonebooks, they have completed the move from gadgetry to utility. Now other data services need to tap into that convenience factor as well.

We’re beginning to see some of it in the UK - people accessing maps and other information on their mobiles quickly get to the point where doing without seems hard to fathom. To make the use more widespread, good usability and certainty about cost have to be in place as well. If a service is complicated to use, it’s automatically less convenient.

Needless to say, the ratio of price to usability that causes someone to adopt a convenient tool can differ enormously and is influenced by what’s important to you. I like walking and value quality food, so going a few extra blocks to get lunch isn’t an issue. But my short walk for a major benefit is someone else’s major trek for little value. Societal characteristics also come into play here. At a project a few years ago, the differences in young people’s need to be connected in Madrid versus London was startling. Not being in touch equalled being lost to the Brits, but to the Madrilenos it was a given for them to meet friends in certain bars and cafes anyway. Knowing you’d see people and a more leisurely attitude to when meant less need to have them at the end of the line.

Of course, there’s a market impact. People look for a better deal and fewer obligations, so SIM only or PAYG is attractive. There may even be more reluctance to use the phone abroad as convenience does lose out when there’s the prospect of an excessive price tag. But for most being abroad equals being on holiday, so it’s easier not to use the phone.

While the current eco/thrifty back-to-basics trend can bring some guilt, it’s certainly not likely to be a match for the convenience of mobile phones. My guess is it could lead a greater number of people to switch their mobiles off at home occasionally, as a way to focus on the here and now and get away from the stresses of the modern world. But then they’d switch it back on so they could order that pizza. To cook and then do all that washing up - honestly, it’s just too inconvenient.

Have your say

Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.

Name

E-mail

Comment

Post as

Anonymously

Display name

I have read and agree to the terms and conditions