Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why 'Smart' Products Have Started to Look Like the Dumb Choice
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/14/magazine/dumb-phones-tvs-retronym-smart-tech.htmlhttps://archive.ph/ILx0w
Why ‘Smart’ Products Have Started to Look Like the Dumb Choice
By Nitsuh Abebe
Published May 14, 2026 Updated May 15, 2026
The 21st-century tech industry has accomplished a lot of cool things, but among the most remarkable may be a trick of language: It managed to make the word “smart” feel repulsive and the word “dumb” sound appealing.
How else to explain the news that more than a quarter of younger Americans are curious about switching to a “dumbphone?” (That’s a cellular handset with only basic features — perhaps an old-school flip phone with push-button T9 texting, or perhaps a purpose-built minimalist device like the Light Phone.) Sure, that fact alone might have more to do with our deep ambivalence about the effect of smartphones on our attention and our society. But how about all the people searching the internet for the right “dumb TV” — i.e., one that just displays the signal you feed it, instead of running some proprietary operating system? How about all the people stumping for dumb watches or recommending dumb coffee makers?
The “dumb” attached to these products is creating retronyms — those labels, like “landline” or “snail mail” or “silent film,” that are only necessary in hindsight, after we’ve invented phones that roam and movies that talk. It wasn’t until a million gadgets started billing themselves as “smart” that we had any reason to distinguish their predecessors as less so. “Smart” arrived earlier than you might think: Ericsson called its GS88 a “smart-phone” in 1997, a decade before Apple entered the market. It was after internet-connected touchscreens were in everybody’s pockets, though, that we experienced the great push to make everything smart. “There was this whole renaissance of the ‘smart home,’” says Brian X. Chen, The Times’s lead consumer technology writer — a Jetsons-style dream of refrigerators that order milk before you run out and dryers that ping your phone when a load is finished. Almost every product that could be connected was connected, whether consumers asked for it or not: doorbells, baby monitors, toothbrushes, belts.
Think back to the 2010s: If you’re anything like me, you will remember the most pointless and infuriating varieties of smartness. There were ovens that refused to convection-roast without a Wi-Fi connection. Kettles that demanded app-based recalibration before agreeing to boil water. There was Smalt (a smart saltshaker that could interface with Amazon devices and dispense salt in an “interactive way”); Amazon’s own Echo Look (an internet-connected camera you could put in your bedroom to comment on your outfits); even the ClickStick smart deodorant applicator, complete with an app that would, according to its successful Kickstarter campaign, help you use the exact right amount of deodorant. Computer scientists like Andrew Ng were saying things like “I hope to someday have grandchildren who are mystified at how, back in 2016, if you were to say ‘Hi’ to your microwave oven, it would rudely sit there and ignore you.”
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
