This from the Guardian is good, a piece on the utility of non-smart phones. That is, as this from the BBC notes:

...basic handsets, or feature phones, with very limited functionality compared to say an iPhone. You can typically only make and receive calls and SMS text messages. And, if you are lucky - listen to radio and take very basic photos, but definitely not connect to the internet or apps.

It's difficult to completely justify smartphones - which perhaps is why they come loaded with so many features. And of course there's a nostalgia aspect to this in that, as the BBC says, these are like the first phones people purchased in the late 1990s when the mobile became ubiquitous. And the battery life. Ah, the battery life. The reality is that unless one buys a top of the range smartphone one is unlikely to get anywhere near that longevity.

Of course if you don't over use the phone in the first place, well, then chances are, smart or dumb, they'll last for a good length of time, and by over use I mean using social media etc. Truth is though - as the Guardian piece notes, if one has a computer close at hand the necessity for other apps vanishes. I've had dumbphones, Android and iPhones and and the truth is of the latter my use of apps has always been pretty restrictive. My approach is to get as long a possible life out of a device and to use it as needed, not simply to dive into it. So there's always a use case for the smartphone, but if I hold onto it for say six or seven years that's probably okay. That said all those Nokias do look mighty attractive.

The thing is so many devices have become the digital equivalent of Swiss Army knives. Nice to look at, useful in very specific situations, expensive - not necessarily the sort of thing you really want to carry around with you. And yet most of us do.