I think we're similar... or maybe I just didn't have a need to have everything avaiable to me whole time.

I own (now about 6 years old) SE Satio... and I use it for phone calling (*GASP*), texting friends (I get free SMS for 30 days each time I buy a new coupon or whatever it's called) and music listening. Granted, Satio has Symbian OS and there's no support for it anymore, but still... that's all I'm using it for.

I also took my dad's completely unused ASUS tablet for myself... and transformed it into a virtual book shelf XD Yeah, having it is convenient - I like that I can bring college-related PDFs etc. with me wherever I go, but apart from that... I have no real use for it. I don't play games on it (with exception of one) as all those games do not interest me (and I despise touch-screen for controls in games), but I love to read while I'm waiting or commuting (I've read about 10 Toaru Majutsu no Index novels in the last month using tablet). Everything else I rather do at home, on my desktop PC, or if I really need to do it away from home I bring my laptop.

So... I think people (including myself) don't appreciate convenience mobile devices bring until they have to use it.

P.S. I still prefer paper books. I filled half of my bookshelf with books in croatian (my native language) I like, and other half with book in english.

Ah. But I forgot we need to milk the users!

If your users are cows and goats, then yes. :)

part of the problem is the phones themselves (especially older phones), system access from websites can be very limiting and users often expect certain functionality from the apps. (notifications, access to camera, etc, etc).

Except I've seen some apps not requiring any advanced functionality. I am referring to those.

In my case the mobile apps actually save me money.

For example, the check-deposit feature of my banking app saves on PayPal fees, as well as fuel costs. It also gives me more time to dedicate to my business, making it less likely that I will miss a juicy business deal.

Having the various utility apps saves me money that I would have otherwise spent on various single-function devices and their disparate batteries.

Even if many phone cameras aren't that great, without them, a large swath of YouTube would not exist, since people would not be carrying about dedicated cameras 24x7.

I should mention that the amount of money I spend on my phone is roughly the same as I spent on my feature phone, about $40/yr minimum.

In my case the mobile apps actually save me money.

For example, the check-deposit feature of my banking app saves on PayPal fees, as well as fuel costs. It also gives me more time to dedicate to my business, making it less likely that I will miss a juicy business deal.

Having the various utility apps saves me money that I would have otherwise spent on various single-function devices and their disparate batteries.

Even if many phone cameras aren't that great, without them, a large swath of YouTube would not exist, since people would not be carrying about dedicated cameras 24x7.

I should mention that the amount of money I spend on my phone is roughly the same as I spent on my feature phone, about $40/yr minimum.

Yeah, that's the actual use I see. Remember the old days, when only businessmen had cell phones?

part of the problem is the phones themselves (especially older phones), system access from websites can be very limiting and users often expect certain functionality from the apps. (notifications, access to camera, etc, etc).

I have just been told (in the awesome gdnet chat) that HTML5 cannot be trusted in its most advanced features. And I don't really trust the users to upgrade their browsers anyway so I guess this possibly the most meaningful reason.

Except I've seen some apps not requiring any advanced functionality. I am referring to those.

its not just advanced html5 features that are limited though, iOS1-5 for example doesn't even allow file uploads through the browser (a feature that existed in Internet Explorer 4!).

And texting isn't a form of social networking?

Texting is a form of personal communication between two people. If that is social networking, then so is talking to anyone

.
Well it depends [...]

Not really, they're completely different approaches.

Texting is a well-defined 1:1 comunication (or 1:N with small N if you have a modern mobile phone that can take several recipients) between you and a small group of select, known people. In the regular case, each message is directed at exactly one person whom you know and who is presumably interested in what you in particular have to say, and you care about having that particular person informed, and optionally receiving a reply with said person's opinion.

Social networking is broadcasting information to an unknown number (tens of millions?) of people whom you do not know and probably don't want to know, optionally restricting access to a known but absurdly large number (thousands) of "friends" of which you do not really know either. There may be five or six people whom you actually know in that crowd.

You receive hundreds of unasked for click conditioning stimuli (the "like" thingie) and dozens of unasked for replies from people whom you don't know (as if you care what they have to say about your holiday photo!).

Animal trainers use a "click" stimulus for positive feedback conditioning every time the animal has done a trick correctly. Facebook is doing that same thing with you. Which is funny in a society where everyone is so self-important about individuality, personal freedom and such. Yet, nobody objects to being trained like a dog or a horse.

Social networking is broadcasting information to an unknown number (tens of millions?) of people whom you do not know and probably don't want to know, optionally restricting access to a known but absurdly large number (thousands) of "friends" of which you do not really know either. There may be five or six people whom you actually know in that crowd.

You receive hundreds of unasked for click conditioning stimuli (the "like" thingie) and dozens of unasked for replies from people whom you don't know (as if you care what they have to say about your holiday photo!).

Huh?

You are not using any social networks are you?

I don't think many who do recognize what you are saying...

Most people do not have thousands of "friends" on facebook. Most probably have less then a hundred.

All, or almost all of them people they have had contact with in real life in some way or another.

I could probably cut a few old work pals I don't care about anymore, but the rest are people I actually care about.

I was surprised myself they were so many after I joined, I thought I was a loner...

Very few people have fully public profiles, most are restricted to friended people.

I rarely see traffic from people I don't know, and if someone who I don't know would like my holiday photo, I would probably think that person was a weird and/or stalker.

Most posts I do, are aimed at a select small group of friends, and I can be fairly certain only those people will see my post, even if I don't restrict visibility, because facebook sorts posts from people you have very little contact with way low, and promotes ones from people you actually do communicate with.

There probably is a small number (compared to the whole) who use them in the way you describe, but most don't.

Most just use it as a tool to easily keep in contact with their extended family and actual friends...