The golden (boyfriend : phone) ratio.

Pop quiz, hot shot.
Q: where do social limits lie in technology these days?
A: no limit. nada. nyet. nein. (etc, etc.)

Or what is exploring the implications of the social protocol of a phone call.

The nineties had seen all the breakfast club phone-starved but no-less-social teenager communicating way past the 1-hour per day allotment to use the phone when homework was done, burnt and digested for the next school day - with a rotary to digital sensibility, using calling devices/ pay-phones as students, way before touch-interfaces were even conceived in their makers’ brains.

The noughties’ (2000-2010’s) caught turn-of-the-millenia tech store hauls which affirmed that the market had allowed a distinct one-relationship per phone. Before sim cards even came around to fulfil the need for privacy (defined as not having people eavesdrop on your voice call at the bar, or to “need to take it outside”) - so, you needed a phone, or a means of calling with the reminiscent 20¢ (in singapore) / 25¢ (in america) coin for the phone booth emergency). Or with the advent of digital pabx'es, it was allowed to reverse charges, and receivers of calls would pay for the charges.

Today, our devices affirm otherwise: the pathogen to the one phone-per relationship is now in session. I think that social life currently has sufficed our technological responses - in a most interesting innovation where it used to be, to where we’d like our lives to be.

1990s - rotary to digital : people giving up on the PABX routers when they were cornerstone to perfecting technologies for cellular sites not frying your brains on short-wave frequencies / The post-Matrix NOKIA phones debut.
2000s - The rise of the PalmV era / organiser-stylus-touch devices that sync your calendars
2010s - the First touch iPhones debuted around 2008, generation 1’s. Which coincided with all the social networks’ launch - which meant when you’re connected, you’re connected.
2020s (approaching everyone in T-minusTwoYears!)- micro-managing into the ONE singular device?

Are we ready for this uniquely subtle proposition?

Are we ever.