Mmmmm, I think smartphones get so much addictive stuff is because of advertisement companies, modern knowledge addiction , and having the hardware to support an advert/microtransaction loop machine.
Tetris hooked people from the start, and that was on old clunker hardware, and eventually on handhelds like the game boy, etc. Nintendo really took off in Sweden way before the NES because of the Game and Watch, and people couldn't stop playing them.

Smartphones were sold to do smart things, or at least marketed that way. Computing power at your fingertips, knowledge, always with you, but since wireless internet is so easy to build into things now, and how easy it is to download 'apps' and how lucractive ads are, that was a match made in heaven.

It's ads and its sibling 'big data' that are the biggest reason why smartphones get the software they are getting.
Including all the spyware in the hardware.

It's just the fact that the phones can be taken with you everywhere. If people could interact with their desktop through some sort of magic tunnel then they'd be playing factorio and co everywhere too.
The addiction is there in both worlds, but the software is different. Phones hit that, I don't want to call it a sweet spot cause it's awful, but, they're hitting it where these 'lightweight' low effort apps are perfectly rationalized.

I mean, what do you expect on your phone? Quad GPU Melter 2020 Games where people assassinate politicians to cool their systems with their icy hearts to get 10 more FPS because liquid nitrogen doesn't cut it anymore but the avatar doesn't shine good enough when wet without that extra set of 99 octillion polygons and shaders? Etc.

(Sorry, now I'm jabbing at excessive graphics..)

But yeah, it's sad, but I think the culprit is ads, they incentivize this cancerous mindset, on the desktop too. Guhhhh.

Here's something quirky and fun for your edification

https://hackaday.com/2019/12/24/now-...can-run-linux/

I think you're conflating/confusing technological and cultural change with "addiction" - they are not one of the same thing by any means. And I think you've ironically made that point when you say that "one can become addicted to the internet, etc". And this is precisely the point; it's not the "device" or the software itself they are "addicted to". It's the activity they are "addicted to". For example, there's "gaming addiction", there's "social media addiction", etc, now in the former, it doesn't matter whether they're using a PC, console, smartphone, whatever, and while they may well have a "favorite" game they play the most often; that's STILL a "gaming addiction", as in: "they are addicted to playing computer games" regardless of the hardware platform used, or even the particular game they like/play the most.

So by your definition, then everyone who has a smartphone is more or less "addicted to smartphones" - which simply isn't true. As I have a smartphone myself, even with AFAIK the latest version of Android that came with a stack of apps pre-installed, I have maybe at most one or two of those apps (apart from Android's "dialer" and "messages" apps for making phone calls and sending/reading any text messages I send/get) that I even just semi-regularly use, and even then I much prefer to use my desktop for my "computing needs". So I rarely use almost all of the apps on that same smartphone - I even uninstalled at least a few of them because I never used them. I hate trying to read such a small screen complete with tiny text/characters, even in regards to text messages that existed before smartphones did.

As far as drugs are concerned; I lived with enough drug addicts, and in some of the worst places you could possibly even imagination to know a thing or two about that to say the very least. And if you have any understanding of what drug addiction actually is, then for starters you'll also note that alcohol is very much a "drug". For seconds, and more to the point; people who are "addicted" to drugs, are normally using their drug of choice as a masking agent so they don't have to try and deal with whatever underlying issues are causing them to abuse drugs (legal or otherwise) - rather than, and to avoid actually addressing with those same underlying issues. Again, it doesn't matter which particular drug it is you're talking about, legal or not, it's still "drug addiction". An "alcoholic" is still abusing "drugs", and therefore is a "drug addict", just because it's a legal drug in most countries it doesn't make any of that any less true. And yes, I've also lived with enough "alcoholics" to know that too BTW.

So are you saying that because it's legal and/or the government and/or society doesn't normally call "alcohol" a "drug", that it's somehow not a "drug" ? Well, beg to differ, really do...

Thankfully nobody lives within even 100 meters of my home but can you explain the mechanism of wireless access to a wired keyboard? I'm assuming you don't mean via "normal" WiFi features in laptops, modems and routers. There is no WiFi in or out of my Main PC. Even my printer, though networked and WiFi capable, is wired to my Main. Access to and from the wired network is prohibited to and from WiFi, other than my Main can access and toggle WiFi in all external modems and routers via the wired connection.

Not to belabor the point but people are still tossing about the word "addiction" much like other common and popular pejoratives like moron, tard, boomer, gay, and pedophile, just to name a few, with little regard for the exact definition of the words. They are employed in inexact ways exactly to be a blanket negativity or dismissal.

Addiction occurs where brains have actual sensors where similarly shaped molecules cause a similar reaction to the naturally occurring internal neurochemistry, and where those reactions are tied to pleasure centers that indicate a "Thumbs up! More of that! Survival!". While there are some similarities in external stimuli that trigger such internal responses, the body has safeguards and limitations that prevent in most cases, over stimulation. Introducing actual chemicals is like a backdoor, for which the body and brain has no defenses. There does exist something of a grey area in between addiction and habit-forming such as the so-called "runners high" or "meditation fasting" where extreme physical activities can cause abnormal amounts of the internal chemicals to be released. Those however don't hold a candle to the compulsion of, say, injecting stimulants or depressants.

The important similarity between mere habit-forming and addictive is the degree of effort to recognize a problem and stop destructive behavior designed to "feed the habit" but actually resulting in a net loss. If people continue to use addiction in the broad brush way common today then it applies to literally everything we prefer - our families, jobs, food, air, water, etc... and the word loses all denotation and becomes mere connotation "wink * wink *.. know what I mean, know what I mean?"

OP wisely chose "security blanket" since that is a formed habit as opposed to a destructive addiction, and one most often easily dropped. Addiction is in a whole other league, but sadly has just become yet another buzzword.

I don’t think that’s what it means in the UK. Nor am I convinced that some people could easily give up their mobile phones because they use them to stay constantly in touch one way or another. I wouldn’t like to guess now what the situation is like in the States because it came to mobile phones much later. The Finns and the Japanese - both early adopters - noted the issues (people texting rather than talking to people in the same room for example). In the early days (in Europe) connection was so flaky that phones were most often used via texting to say: I am here – where are you? As quick reminders – buy some milk! As a means of hooking up during an outing. But as they are more stable now the voice component is much more to the fore.

Social media is designed to keep people on it as much as possible in order to throw ads of one kind or another at them. Usability engineers and psychologists are enrolled in order to keep people on a webpage or on a system for as long as possible for that to happen. If you take away the adverts then the whole caboodle falls apart because how else would it pay? So I think the people here who talk about ‘addictive design’ aren’t far wrong. I can’t think how else youtube, FB, Twitter etc etc have been designed if it isn't to have a passive audience to get to buy something...

Being a security blanket (Norman’s Teddy) is a separate issue and yes for some the mobile phone is that – it’s a way of being reassured that they’re wanted, needed, popular etc etc… For some the on-line personae produced via Facebook and Twitter is a much better existence than the reality. I’m not sure if any of you have ever compared people’s Facebook photos with the actual person it’s meant to represent. I bet if someone did that bit of research they’d be surprised. One of my friends once told me that the photos and descriptions of a party he went to were nothing life the same on the Facebook account he read later… The party-thrower was a ‘networker’ keen to boost her career and increase her social profile. Accuracy was the last thing on her mind. I bet she isn't the only one to 'airbrush' an event judging by how difficult I've found it to recognise people from their social networking site photos!

I don’t use mobile phones nor do I have a Facebook account, Twitter etc etc but it doesn’t stop me from realising how appealing that escapism might be for some people. And when I see a parent spend 20 minutes in a hospital waiting room with her nose in her mobile phone while her 9 year old daughter sits ignored next to her, desperately trying to share her book with her mother - then yes I wouldn’t blame anyone for questioning whether that was ‘addiction’... Of course, it could just be bad parenting...

There has always been an argument over whether "behavioural addictions" like gambling and online gaming are really addictions like the better-known chemical ones. However they have been shown to work by keeping the brain's reward centre switched on permanently just as cocaine does, so the two things seem to use the same biochemical end-pathway. Whether the switch gets jammed by a chemical impersonating a natural messenger molecule or by a pattern of nerve signals from elsewhere in the brain seems less important to me.

Perhaps different people have different reasons for how they use their "mobile devices". Habit can be a powerful thing. If some people get into the habit of coordinating a get together with other people via text, it could lead to them texting one another without realizing that they are within sight of one another, because they are looking at mobile devices, instead of their surroundings. With others, maybe it is closer to something akin to an addiction.

With all that's been presented, if there was an original intent to make them addictive/habit-forming/whatever, I do have to wonder, how deep is the rabbit hole? Did it really start with the advertisers? Or did it start with some agencies of governments that wanted to assure that people had a way to communicate virtually whenever, so that the governments could co-opt it to track/eavesdrop/etc? Perhaps then the advertisers/etc. saw that they could benefit from that, so they were happy to push the agenda?

Or, was it all purely technical/sociological evolution/change?

Whatever the cause, to me, the situation seems somewhat amazing. For example, there are some cars with "interactive" displays, on which a message will sometimes pop-up indicating that drivers should keep their eyes on the road. With some cars, the message sometimes pops-up before the car is in motion, yet other times it will pop-up while the car is being actively driven. If I'm driving, if anything moves around me, it tends to draw my attention, in case I need to take action to avoid an accident. So for such a message to pop-up while the car is in motion seems like a poor idea, to say the least. I would have hoped that government agencies which are supposed to protect their citizens, would intervene to prevent/control such things.

But here we are.

My only point in making the distinction is in the degree. If any person uses opiates of sufficient strength long enough you don't have a choice, your will power means nothing, you will be addicted and will go through physical torture to break that addiction. Just owning a smartphone will not make you keep your face in the screen all day long and will not be difficult in any way comparable to break that habit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

Nope. This is nothing new but I was impressed with how modest the actual setup they can use is. Videos on youtube if you look for them.

When people talk about digital privacy I always think of this. I am a privacy advocate, but so much of it (privacy, that is) seems theoretical. With that said, I'm never in the market for a bluetooth keyboard. Somebody gave me one, I tried it, it works. "What am I going to use you for?"

From the Wikipedia article:

That's ridiculous! Also ingenious.

Where in my post did you see anything remotely mentioning alcohol or a debate between illegal and legal drugs?

Three major differences between "smartphones" and PC's:
1) smartphones were/are designed to be a delivery vehicle for addictive software/programs/digital drugs.
Ref: https://quharrison.com/digital-drugs-binaural-beats/

2) what makes smartphones particularly dangerous is its mobility...it allows the addiction to be "fed" 24/7, you can't even do that with a laptop let alone a desktop. At least a PC you can turn it off, walk away leave it at home etc...

3) the RF radiation exposed especially to the brain, and body contributes not only to mutations but also behavioral cognitive dissonance and has been shown to "rewire the brain". This will increase with the adoption of 5G.
Ref: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestud...nes/index.html

That might effectively depend on the source of the addiction. In one case, people making the claims might be expecting that something that derives from the claimed attempts to make the smart phone addicting, might be the source of the addiction. But another aspect of things might be, the smart phone enabling some pre-existing tendency to worsen.

Some medical researchers have pointed out that people with severe so-called depression ( brain chemistry imbalance ) , can be subject to video game addiction. The more mobile access to a video game can be, the more likely to enable that addiction.

[QUOTE=ChuangTzu;6071310]
Three major differences between "smartphones" and PC's:
1) smartphones were/are designed to be a delivery vehicle for addictive software/programs/digital drugs.
Ref: https://quharrison.com/digital-drugs-binaural-beats/[quote]

I don't see this guy or that page as being anything more than pop speculation. He cites South Park as "evidence" of sound that will instantly "make people poop their pants" and while extreme low frequencies at very high sound pressure levels quite literally shake your body and make one feel like you might, humans are constantly aware of audio frequencies but utterly unaware of radio frequencies even massive doses at microwave frequencies capable of cooking a person or any lifeform. I find the entire concept of "digital drugs" to be ridiculous and irresponsible.

If so-called digital drugs did exist and if they were actually addictive, mobility would have little to do with it. If one was actually addicted as with actual chemical substances ingested by a person, that person would simply find excuses to never or rarely leave home. Real addiction takes place on the subconscious level which is why addicts don't realize they are becoming addicted until external events in their lives due to their choices become impossible to ignore any longer as to the reality and source. If a person forms a habit through mere association with pleasure such as digital games or augmented reality to the degree that they ignore their family, friends and even their employment, it is already immediately visible what the reality and source is. All work and no play may make Jack a dull boy, but all play and no work generally makes Jack pathetic and dead.

I realize NIH is generally an expert authority but such studies are highly subject to bias and are as authoritative (or not) as a college term paper. This is a hypothesis at best. Having a cellphone near your head does little to increase or concentrate the radio frequencies that are already "in the air" affecting everyone whether you own a phone or not.

I rather hate to even mention this similar "perception" because so many people believe it even though it is as provably absurd as Astrology, but it is very much like the confirmation bias that makes so many believe people go crazy on the Full Moon. The phases of the Moon are only a measure of how much sunlight it can reflect or not based on the relative position of the Earth whose shadow prevents up to an extreme proportion of radiation from the Sun to be reflected when the Moon is occluded. If it were true that people "go nuts" during the full moon, then that effect would be vastly increased during daylight. The whole Full Moon Phenomenon has been utterly debunked and is a mythical hangover from ancient times of superstition and ignorance. Similarly I strongly suspect the affect of cell phone radiation is highly mythical and bound by confirmation bias and any affect it might possibly have is already there affecting all of us to only very slightly lesser a degree. It's about as scientific as concluding if someone has your photo they have your soul.

Yes, there are plenty of radio waves in the air. There isn't necessarily any reason to believe that a cell phone concentrates waves already in the air from other sources. However, a cell phone is a source of radio waves, and a wave tends to spread out and be less intense, the greater the distance it is from the point of origin. So the intensity of energy from a wave source right next to your head, is going to be greater than from the same source a considerably greater distance away.

Of course but do you have a handle on how much a smartphone generates per day compared to all the other sources in a day? Then when we consider how much phone time is actually spent holding it to one's face as opposed to texting, I'm betting the increase is insignificant.