Good article, generally poor comments
That article was a breath of fresh air. Many of the comments were the usual anti/anti-fanboi crap.
The points raised in the article were thought provoking. Those by many of the commentards were boring.
To those who think smartphones are toys for the rich: You are mostly right.
To those who think smartphones can ONLY be toys for the rich: You are wrong.
Why? Let's all agree here that computers can be useful. In the developing world you are going to want a device that requires as little power as possible, as few materials to make and is robust.
Looks more like a smartphone than a desktop PC to me. Certainly a battery seems a good idea for those who don't have a wall socket (or a wall, even) to call their own.
Screw the smartphone/computer definition: Talk in terms of who the person is, what do they require, and what device will accomplish this.
Take the way that in many countries, mobile phone use has 'leapfrogged' that of landlines, and use it as a starting point of your thought.
Go and read some Arthur C Clarke. His dream of geostationary satellites allowing the distribution of useful (ie, health, medical, politcal) news to widely spread populations without an existing infrastructure, for example. It might have veered towards what he feared- "the peddling of soap" - but at least he was thinking.
Here we were, faced with an article that should have made see a bigger picture, and we were mostly repeating the same old shit.
To those who responded in the spirit of the article, I'm sorry your wheaty comments were lost in the chaff