The article makes a very astute point: that people are attracted to the physicality, the tangibility of "analog" things. Whether out of nostalgia (because we've been there) or retro fascination (when we haven't lived it firsthand), we can develop an emotional connection with a single physical objects that succinctly and permanently hold an abstract concept in a physical package -- like a letter, a book, a music record, or a photograph.

In the digital world so much of what we produce, consume, and interact with has no physical manifestation what we can strongly identify with. The computer is an abstract filing cabinet which can display what you're looking for on its own screen, or plays abstract 'music files', or streams 'video' from subscription apps. We're essentially asking the computer to recall these things from its "memory", and luckily, they remember with exact accuracy much more than a human would. While we can experience these things, we can't hold them in our hand; we can't share them in a self-contained, self-describing form (like handing someone a book) -- if we can share them at all.

I think as related sensation is the feeling of control, or at least understanding, over our technology. You can see exactly how a typewriter works; each letter you type is a direct result of your action, through a clear causal chain. When you type on a computer, letters appear on your screen through a much more convoluted process we take as magic, and especially for someone unused to the technology, that can lead to a feeling of loss of control.

A typewriter never has inexplicable input lag. I think you've made an astute point.

Those objects are collectable, timeless and perfect for what they do. It's not like buying a laptop, which is useless a decade or two later. In my opinion, the older you get the more you appreciate stuff that lasts. Especially if you face hardship at some point and see the world for what it really is.

> collectible, timeless (...)

and markedly more backwards- and forwards-compatible than anything digital. We can read plays from the 1600s, or essays on how to build a government from the 1780s.

We can admire art from thousands of years ago, and people thousands of years in the future will be able to hold developed photographs of us in their hands and readily perceive it, while JPEG/EXIF file format will, without conscious intervention, will sink into near-complete obscurity.

When we die, how do we pass on our digital possessions? Do Facebook's, Instagram's datacenters, full of pictures of now-dead twenty- and thirty-somethings, will have to purge inactive accounts one day. Will our kids inherit our iTunes library even though they have their own? Do we pass 1000-game heirloom Steam accounts to our grandkids?

Morbid, I know, but the tangibility of physical, 'real-world' objects exudes a more reliable aura of permanence than that of digital content. Even if our descendants hold a garage sale the very next day, at least the world is made aware of our stuff, and it doesn't just spin away on a hard drive somewhere, forgotten.

You've just made a very astute point. I've been thinking for some time now that we are reaching a critical mass of technology. An era when people will start to become bored and detached from technology, and yearn for something tangible, and able to wrap their heads around. For me the allure of a typewriter is the fact that I can see how it works, I can fix it myself, and I can tinker with it.

Same with myself and fointain pens, I can fix them, tweak them, and know exactly how it works.

I picked up one myself in the past year, and find that for notetaking it's very much what I prefer these days. There's the old running-out-of-ink problem (this pen lays down a thick line, and even with a refillable cartridge, typically needs filling daily with heavy use, every few days if I'm slowing down).

The writing though is clear and preferable to other implements. Ballpoints are atrocious, rollerballs only slightly tolerable.

As a musician, I've recently started working with analog synthesizers. Digital synths tend to be very alienating devices, at least for me - you don't really program them, you just select a preset that sounds kind of like what you want. Software synths even more so. Then I picked up an Arturia Microbrute, and the visceral thrill of twisting knobs to get the sounds really turned me on! There are no presets. Want to repeat something? Figure out how you did it before, or put an overlay on the keyboard and mark it with ink to get the knob positions. And because knob-twisting is such a part of it, I find myself altering the sounds in realtime. As a guitarist, that sort of intimate tonal control is much more familiar to me.

Sound engineers have long recognized the necessity of keeping analog-style physical controls around, even when they are just inputs to a computer.

Nobody who can help it is going to mix with a keyboard and mouse. Faders and knobs (excuse me, "encoders") rule the day.

Patch sheets!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GRIVcYft-vY/VeejwfmzDdI/AAAAAAAJ1K...

Yeah i wonder how much of it has to do with instant feedback. Turning that knob or throwing that switch tells you without seeing what you have done. With touch, or key combos, you often have to glance at a screen to tell if it actually went through or not.

I think a similar thing is at play with people's love for the modem handshake squeal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV8DEJ8ydJQ

You could tell, once you heard it enough times, how well the connection was.

I could be considered one of those people and, at least in my case, it is not in opposition to the digital world (which I also love, actually) at all.

For me, the difference between a typewriter and a computer, or a slide rule and a modern calculator, for example, is like the difference between a painting and a photograph. Of course the photograph is more accurate and it is not practical to make an oleo painting to remember where I parked the car, and there are very beautiful photographs, but I will always appreciate a Vermeer and will prefer it to a photograph of the same landscape.

There will continue to be lots of examples of preserving the best of analog technology in the digital world.

One example is an app that I built that lets authors sign ebooks (Authorgraph: http://www.authorgraph.com). This idea was a result of doing more and more reading on my Kindle but missing the experience of meeting authors and having them sign my books.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I haven't figured out what the root cause is but I love high quality pens and paper, and I love mechanical keyboards. I just like high quality input devices. There's something very satifying about the physical feel of this kind of thing. I think if I were born earlier I'd be into typewriters instead of mechanical keyboards.

I love mechanical keyboards as well. I recently (a few months ago) got a WhiteFox with MX Clears and I look forward to typing on that when I get home.

With regard to analog music, ie record players, I have some understanding. There's something novel about having a unique item, where it gets worn and changes. It's yours. It's physical. It's sensual [1].

You can give it away. You can loan it to a friend. Your friend can have the same record and yet ... it is different.

There is something special about having an analog night -- putting on the record player and reading a book.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property...

There is a quite nice web comic in which a Hermes 3000 typewriter plays a big role - The Guy I almost Was, see

electricsheepcomix.com/almostguy/

Computers are distracting, and working with them as a rather easily distracted person is often not so productive. Even more so with Internet. Thus as an aspiring author and philologist I use it as a device for gathering, storing and manipulating information, and use pen and paper for creative activities. The limits are all physical and tools simplest, so all I have to, and can do is to transfer my thoughts on paper. Then I type them with a typewriter for having a product that lends itself better to editing and being read later, as my personal handwriting is, a bit too personal. Having it written on a typewriter again helps me avoid distraction. Then I edit my draft and retype if need be. I find that screen editing is mire prone to hide or produce malformed paragraphs, typoes, incontinuities and the like, as I tend to read what surrounds my edits. But the review&rewrite approach requires me to review each time I want to commit my edits writing anew the manuscript. I am more productive this way.

Furthermore, it's way more fulfilling to have created a physical form of my thoughts, that can exist as an object. It's more pleasing to handle paper, reread my work and edit it freeform with a pen. I feel more engaged, and I have a better memory of what I write on paper that what I write on computer.

I don't know if this situation has any backing research but I guess making such research would be yet another unnecessary distraction for me as a creative.

For what it's worth, when referring to a thing as outdated, one needs to ask himself, "is it, really?" Is a digital successor of an analogue or mechanical gadget able to produce a strict superset of the effects of the latter? I think, in photography, music, plastic arts and literature the answer is no. And unless the answer is yes, the gadget is not outdated. Even if ninety nine hundredths of the effects are reproduced, and many new are added, for that one hundredth of the effect, the older tool is still valid, more so if that's what the author is wanting.

Besides, today's things have less glory and object presence attached to them than their older counterparts. It's normal to want that and seek that I think.

I feel a tinge of what you describe every time I look at my collection of old computers, but that tinge falls into the ether when I realize that there is no such thing as an old computer, just old users. Technology doesn't just stop working because its unfashionable - really, technology will continue to work in the physical world, for as long as it is functionally operational.

It is the user who decides how useful something is, and really: its only a decision.

Off to write an email client for my Oric-1 .. ;)

Check out this artist that uses a typewriter as a medium! https://www.artrabbit.com/events/the-typewriter-artist

Some of the pictures are amazing. I got to see her a few weeks ago doing a live "typing" event drawing out pictures of children jumping around. It was amazing how fast she typed and how good he pictures were.

Writing a letter on an old type writer is like sending Morse Code with a straight key. You manually form each character into words. There's nothing really like it.

Human to human (conversation), pen to paper (letter), metal to metal (type writer or straight key). Everything else is too impersonal and abstract. Too far removed from being human.

> coping mechanism for, the increasingly digital world

As I and my fellow vi fanatics can attest, this isn't limited to just outdated analog technology.