Thinking about it more...I think texting, especially group texting, was much bigger during the 2008 campaigns than it was during the 2004 campaigns, and for some, rudimentary web browsing. And they did it on the pre-iPhone concept of a smartphone, that we've since thrown out.

What they used to call feature phones back then (which I think are practically discontinued now - most current feature phones would be considered smartphones in 2006) supported texting but it was used less than on the 2006 concept of smartphones.

I still remember Helio's "don't call it a phone" ads. They almost beat the iPhone launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_Ocean

When they said social network, they meant SMS Twitter. It was a very interesting time with lots of companies vying to be the next evolution of mobile.

If you double check context, you'll see the US was the subject of comment I replied to and it's reasonable to see an implicit constraint even without me qualifying it. HN's guideline on charitable reads applies to everyone regardless of geography as far as I know. It's only bizarre if you read it in a way that would be bizarre if it was a fair reading.

Obama famously used a Blackberry. That isn't a smartphone in the current use of the term IMO, but I think it was called that back then.

> I find the idea that the Internet’s adoption was related to US presidential election cycles a little bizarre. I know they dominate the mainstream media for a few months every four years but surely the utility of the internet vastly exceeds that?

Not to mention the rest of the planet. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the majority of the world is not-America, and views American presidential elections as a newsworthy diversion for a few weeks every four years, and not much more than that. Those elections don't really drive any changes in behaviour. Hell, my own country's elections don't really drive any changes in behaviour.