I’ve been very stressed lately and have been doing some window shopping to calm down. I’m interested in gadgets, but a lot of things can just be replaced with apps. I realize a phone won’t replace very large appliances like refrigerators or washing machines so I’m trying to scope my question to portable devices. So what are some portable devices or gadgets that their specialization hasn’t been replaced by smart phone apps? Extra points if they’re super useful and reliable.
I can’t vape weed with my phone yet.
Not with that attitude
Electric Toothbrush. Keeping up with Dental Hygiene is important too!
Own one. Definitely recommend it and ribbon floss.
Would love to have one, but my neurologist said even slight vibrations in my mouth can fuck with my epilepsy. That means a migraine because my medicine prevents seizures. Going to the dentist is an affair that wrecks me for the whole day.
Cameras. You can take pictures with your phone, but despite Apple’s advertisements, a phone camera will never produce anywhere near the same quality a dedicated digital camera with interchangeable lenses. And neither are as good as film.
They haven’t completely replaced them. But for 99% of people they’ve replaced them for 99% of their photography needs.
Man, that 1% are buying a shitload of cameras.
3 year high
That’s long after the reign of smart phones started. https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/15524/worldwide-camera-shipments/
Neither are as good as film?
That’s subjective. Subjective to the application and the viewer.
It’s not, really. Most of the variables are quantifiable: granularity (or resolution, what have you), dynamic range, speed. A small, disposable, fixed-lens film camera may not match a 3/4 Fuji X model, but compare similar size frames and don’t try to sabotage film by getting the cheapest no-name brand, and the measurable qualifiers are always superior on film. There are very few, if any, digital cameras available at even the professional level that can match the dynamic range and granularity of large format film.
Edit
I’m just going to put this here, because there are clearly lot of folks with opinions about this backed by … opinions.
The Wikipedia article, while not authoritative, provides a good summary across a variety of factors. Aside from convenience factors, the one area where digital has a clear lead over film is noise and grain for color photography, and even so, long-exposure time photos require doing things like cooling the sensor - the not doing of which increases noise in digital photographs.
When it comes to dynamic range, it seems modern digital cameras have finally caught up with film. HDR is described only for digital, and ignores the fact that multiple shots-at-different-exposures-combined-at-print-time has been used in film for nearly as long as we’ve had film cameras. It’s just now easier to do in digital cameras.
There’s a distressing amount of assertions with [citation needed] in the article. There’s also odd assertion that digital is capable of better low light performance right before the admission that digital speeds at lower than ISO 100 are rarely available, whereas it’s easy to find ISO 20 and 25 film - and you can ISO 0.8 film commercially.
@Blue_Morpho responded about how film is so bad that Kubrik choose digital, and there are certainly some directors who agree with him. Then there are directors like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who think film’s better.
TL;DR All of this is wildly off-topic
The question was what devices are better as specialized devices vs apps on phones. My answer was: cameras. Not many directors are going to be shooting major films on cell phones. All of the controversy has been around film vs digital, and I’ll grant that digital has finally caught up to film in some areas, although I wonder if we throw price in as a factor how this would look.
Film is so bad in low light that Kubrick had to obtain 3 of the 10 NASA lenses to film Barry Lyndon. Any modern digital can take better low light pictures than the best film.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7
ignores the fact that multiple shots-at-different-exposures-combined-at-print-time has been used in film for nearly as long as we’ve had film cameras.
Multi shot for HDR in film is restricted to still life because film is very slow compared to digital. There’s no film camera that will automatically change the stops to make that feasible. So it’s take a shot, adjust settings, take another, adjust settings. At the low and high end you’d need to swap film stock between shots.
@Blue_Morpho responded about how film is so bad that Kubrik choose digital,
??? I said to achieve low light performance on FILM, Kubrick needed a lens that was (and is) so special that only 10 exist in the world. What was possible for Kubrick using extraordinarily rare and expensive equipment is achieved by anyone with a common digital camera today.
So while you can find references to film that matches digital, it is so extreme that it isn’t valid. It would be like someone using the cryogenic cooled sensor in the $10B Webb telescope for their argument.
This is sadly not correct
It’s impossible to get a film look with digital, you can get close but there is just something about film that feels like a capture of an actual moment
Similar argument is vinyl vs digital, some people just refuse to believe vinyl is unbeatable
On a similar note, action cameras, which can be even more portable than a smartphone.
Excellent point, especially as they’re still quite common. GoPro, for instance.
And cameras will never replace a good painting!
Jk, I still use my handheld camera, a shame it takes 30 seconds to boot it
30 seconds
Yowsa. That’s an old camera!
I have a point-and-shoot Canon from around the mid-2010s that’s still perfectly functional. It starts faster than I can get to the phone app on my phone, and takes pictures faster. The video is worse.
My Fuji T-10 takes a couple of seconds to start from cold, but less than a second if it’s in stand-by.
The only digital camera I ever owned that took double-digit seconds to start was my very first - I don’t even recall the brand, but it was before smart phones and the resolution was pathetic, like 800x600 or something. And it was so. Slow. Starting, and snapping.
Maybe I’m overly dramatic and it actually takes less than 10 seconds, but it feels like an eternity…
I wonder why you “can’t” have a camera that is ready instantly.
Radiation detectors. Such as the Radiacode or the Open Gamma Detector.
Binoculars are quite portable, very useful, and phones don’t do a good job at zooming in like that.
Smart watches integrate with phones but the phones by themselves are not so good at measuring the heart rate and other parameters directly.
Mini projectors. UV flashlights. Tools in general… There is so much actually. What type of gadgets are you looking for?
https://www.wired.com/2012/05/softbank-unveils-worlds-first-phone-with-radiation-detection/
Your other points are valid.
Ooh, cool! 😁 That detector seems to be working only in “Geiger mode”, which means that it can count the number of X-rays/Gamma particles but it does not estimate their energy. So, the dedicated devices are still better in that they allow you to identify the source of the radiation by measuring the counts and the energy distribution simultaneously.
It probably would not be too difficult to build the open gamma detector into something like a pinephone. I don’t think that has been done yet.
Pagers for Hospitals.
To be clear: Hospitals use pagers because they use a longer (and much lower bandwidth) wavelength, which is affected less by things like thick fire-resistant walls. Hospitals are built like bunkers so that things like fires don’t require the entire building to be evacuated. Pagers can still reliably get signal even in the basement of a hospital, when behind multiple fire-resistant walls and solid concrete floors. Texting has effectively replaced pagers for 99% of the population. But hospitals still use them because reliability is prioritized in the medical world; No hospital wants to lose a patient because a doctor was in the basement and didn’t get a text.
There was a good episode of Planet Money which went into this. I addition to what you said, when doctors would get texts, they were more likely to dismiss the message and not respond immediately which was more dangerous.
A Vibrator.
Never had an older Nokia?
Have I got an app for you!
:-D ~~~
RrrrrRrrrrrRrrrr~RRRRRRRRIs that the same though? I don’t have the right parts to know, and the procedure to find out makes it easier to ask.
Men can, well you know…
But depending on the size of your phone it takes more bravery.
Vibrator
We had Dildroid like 16 minutes after the initial Android release… 😂🤷
And yet I own more vibrators than I do smartphones
Nokia 3310 would disagree,
Flashlights. Again, in an emergency, you can use your phone. But it’s not as good as a real flashlight, and I always carry and use a flashlight.
Also somebody had a bright idea to disable the flashlight in Android after battery drops to low percentages. I was very angry one day, when I walked through forest, and I needed to do it in complete darkness.
Can confirm. In many situations, it is far more convenient to go get a flashlight worth $2 to $5 that can easily fit exactly where you need it to be rather than holding your main communication device in an awkward angle where it doesn’t quite do the job and also a wrong move could destroy your $200 to $1k device.
Spend $20-$30 and you can have a rock and roll light.
This is my latest, of, uh, many lights. I’m a bit of an addict.
I’ve heard the “flashlight rabbit hole” goes deep.
I’ve bought myself exactly one “nice” flashlight and it was a big shock seeing how good the tech has gotten since phones took that over in my life. Some Acebeam model with a ridiculous bulb and a convenient rechargeable AAA battery with a USB C port. It’s tiny and super neat.
While I haven’t bought multiple, I did buy more of the same model for family members to carry around. For what it’s worth I don’t really keep it on me, but if you carry a purse or whatever, a powerful finger-sized flashlight could definitely come in handy without being bulky.
I’ve actually written a bit about my gripes with the EDC subculture online, which is how I learned about the flashlight in the first place. TLDR is that there is a weird disconnect that can’t be ignored between a rational interest in preparedness and the phenomenon of online communities of users goading each other into buying more and more widgets, sometimes with financial incentives to make others buy things.
It’s not just flashlights, it’s a whole bunch of things. EDC is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes and while I do appreciate having a lot of options and reviews for said options I genuinely think it’s a consumerist disappointment if you zoom back out.
Would you mind letting me know the model of that Acebeam? Really like the sound of it. Though the OClip mentioned elsewhere is nice too.
I was just thinking this morning that it’s kinda odd that there’s no cell phone that also doubles as a multi-meter for measuring electronic current. I guess it’s because in theory you’d need to also carry around a set of probes with you?
I think you are on to something, add a basic o-scope and it’s pretty much magic.
You invented the tricorder. Nice.
One of my favorite apps (not updated, doesnt work very well anymore), but I still have it installed:
Honestly most of the non digital functions of a phone are still inferior to it’s dedicated counterparts, but I would argue that a phone is good enough for 99% of people.
So get a pocket multitool thingy, I always carry one in my bag and it has helped me quite a few time in my life.
Which multi tool? I carry a Benchmade bugout knockoff and a genuine Leatherman skeletool, ifixit Minnow screwdriver set and a generic basic screwdriver with small/large Philips and flathead in my work bag. Oh and a small adjustable wrench… Covers 95% of my work.
Yeah, the issue with multi tools is the same issue with phones; They’re mediocre at a lot of different things. A dedicated multi-bit screwdriver will almost always be better than a multitool. A solid pair of pliers will almost always be better than a multitool. Et cetera, et cetera…
But in a pinch, a multitool is better than nothing. And a multitool is a hell of a lot easier to carry as a “just in case” thing than an entire toolbox of individual tools. As a freelancer I habitually keep a lot of tools in my trunk, but I don’t want to walk all the way out to my car just to tighten one screw. So I also keep a multitool around as a “good enough” solution.
Pocket knife. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a phone case out there with a box-knife-like insert for a razor blade.
…infact, brb.
Please send pics of “Knife Phone”.
Edit:
Well fuck me, turns out not only does it exist, but there are quite a few options!
There’s this dude, which tries to be an entire Swiss army knife. Buyers pretty consistently complain about the build quality though.
This one has a sheath for a removable knife:
And this one uses the mechanism I had envisioned when I was typing my original post, but uh… cuts a little differently than I had expected, and is ofc the clear winner:
Best way to calm down would be to look into minimalism.
Hi-fi audio recorders with builtin microphones. As a bass player, I deeply resent phone mics and speakers.
Phones suck for anything audio related in general.
My hands.
Paper and pencil: an analog data storage medium immune to power outages, data costs, EMPs, and remote surveillance.
bro, they can litterally listen to your pencil strokes through the walls man.
Most people don’t need to worry about the NSA listening to them write down stuff.
Nice try fbi guy
What about the CIA though?
They can listen to your thoughts man
Even if I pull out all my teeth?
Checkmate CIA!
