I wouldn't call it pollution. I'd say that it is ill-thought marketing and design for some of those cases. Discrimination is key.

For example, multifunction phones are an abomination to me. As a phone, they are too large and their tiny buttons and bad UI make their use a pain. Their other use (as a miniature computer for email, web browsing, etc...) is equally awkward because they are too small.

I may be forced to purchase a cell phone with a camera next time, because almost no one is making one without a camera. They don't even take decent pictures, and I know that they have to take away from the battery life that could have been there if the weight used for the camera was used for something useful such as more cells in the battery.

On the other hand, I use a PDA for keeping my calendar and some ebooks. The PDA that I've chosen is small enough to keep with me without undue annoyance but has a large enough screen to actually read texts comfortably, although nothing with figures or graphs would work well.

The combination of PDA and cell phone just doesn't work. A PDA form-factor is too large to hold to my ear (and those bluetooth ear contraptions hurt after a while). On the other hand, the smart-phone fails at being a decent PDA.

Then there are online publications. I mind them less since I have the option of reading them on a 30" LCD monitor and a very comfortable chair. The screen greatly eases the strain on my eyes and the good chair makes sitting acceptable for longer than 30 minutes. I find it more comfortable than holding a book in a chair in the living room. If I need to read something in a mobile fashion, it helps if I can use my laptop. I've found that I can read far faster and with more flexibility (how I read, not where) if the material is electronic. Electronic reading is still a bad idea if I'm backpacking or otherwise away from electricity, but I tend to avoid anything electronic or textual in kind of activities.


Those all-in-one scanner, printer, fax, and copier devices don't really add much hardware than if they did only one or two of those functions. If you have a scan and print capability, the fax and copy functions come for "free", only requiring a bit of software. If you copy, you should be able to print and scan. What seems to "crash" most often with these is not the additional functionality, which is almost certainly software. For me, it is usually the plastic parts breaking inside.

Also, I think you are missing one benefit from the all-in-one machines. Since, the added cost to make those all-in-one machines is minimal over making them a simple copier, and if you require redundancy, simply purchase multiples. I too have a home office that requires me to print, copy and fax, so I have one of these all-in-one machines and a separate printer. I'm not wasting anything by not using the print capability of that all-in-one machine, but I view it as a backup gotten for almost nothing with my copy+fax machine.

For some folks, space is at a premium, and these all-in-one machines fit their lifestyle. Why have a 2400 square foot house when you can comfortably live in a 900 square foot house? If your needs are met in a more efficient package, you don't need that larger house.

So, it is certainly not wrong to avoid products with unnecessary features, but I believe that some of those packages consume fewer additional resources than you might think.
 

I agree with everything you wrote. Like you, I still prefer the printed versions of most of my journals and magazines. I never owned a cell phone, even when I carried a pager. (It's not that hard to borrow or find a phone.) I don't use a laptop computer. I find it hard to do serious work while traveling (except in the hotel, and I'm usually too tired to work after all the traveling). My scanners just scan, and my printers just print. (I rarely need copies and just scan and print to make one.) I haven't bought an electronic book device because they don't meet my threshhold criteria: easier to use than a book, accept PDF and TXT files, easy to read, and low cost (no more than a paperback) book files.

I also hate rampant 'featuritis' in gadgets and in software. One reason the iPod has been so successful is that it presents a simple interface for all main tasks: a touch-wheel surrounded by four buttons. The iPhone, however, is a different beast. It tries to be everything: cell phone, PDA, camera, minicomputer, internet device, portable game player, etc. I believe most buyers just want to show off all the features to their friends and family. Look, it even scrambles eggs!

I recently needed a replacement car stereo and found it impossible to buy a simple gadget. I wanted two things: iPod compatibility and a simple, logical interface. I could get the first but not the second, even with two dozen stereos to choose among. All the vendors sell lights, bells, and whistles; none sell ease of use.
 

Actually...I think the answer is very simple. It's the technological version of supersizing fast-food. It doesn't cost much more to make a phone with all the bells and whistles than to make a simple, straight-up phone, so they add the junk and up the price. I would imagine it's a similar form of economics with the multi-function office machines.
 

I concur with most of what has been written but I would add that these multi-faceted devices like the printer combo exist to preserve legacy functions because technology has not fully replaced analog information sources. It would be hard to find a simple copier because of low demand in the marketplace but added together the people who still want a scanner, copier, or a fax machine have a large enough potential to attract firms into the market. This is true because the age of paper is waning while the digital revolution is still in it's early years. As seen in devices like the i phone that tries to be all things, while falling short in simple functionality.