>"No killer apps take advantage of much faster processors and interconnects."

This is what keeps me from upgrading my phone (a 5s). I don't need a larger screen, and everything else is an increase in hardware performance. Okay, so the OS will be a little bit more zippy, but I've yet to run into an app or game that runs sluggish or won't run at all. There's nothing there that compels me to upgrade. Shy of this phone breaking, I don't see myself upgrading for a few more years. And judging by how many times I've dropped my phone on a hard surface with nothing but a few scratches/dents in the metal backing, I don't see that happening any time soon.

As for computers, were it not for gaming I'd probably still be using a machine I built in 2008. It was a dual core with 8GB RAM and an 8800 Ultra GPU. Then again it was built for the purpose of gaming, so of course it's going to have extra good hardware meant to last years. Nothing else I use my computer for is hardware-intensive enough to justify an upgrade.

And I'd imagine were it not for the tech un-savvy buying super cheap, under-powered machines that they promptly bog down with viruses, not many people would have a need to upgrade their compueters since all they do is use a browser and Office

>that indicates that innovation in the sector has slowed and that many people don't find the newer models compelling.

It's ok to have it slow at some point. I, for one, don't particularly like "endless progress" (and with hazy goals, mostly for its own sake).

Better we learn to better use the tools we already have, and distribute them more evenly (1/3 of the world still lives in medieval like conditions, and the inefficiency with which the rest 2/3 uses the available technology is mind bogling -- I'm not even talking from an ecological standpoint, more like the useless "social boilerplate" that we use it for).