[xemdetia]

No. The way that you structured this whole article is strange. It doesn't feel as you read through that you are talking about the title nor does it feel like each subsection is connected in either way. Generally a reader expects: introduction to concept, hypothesis/argument based on introduced concepts, supporting arguments for or against the hypothesis, and finally a conclusion. I feel like you are missing the introduction entirely, so a reader has to assume the title is your argument (as sometimes appears in news articles). Given that argument you end up wandering through 3 sections that do not seem related to that title, and at the end I still have no idea what you wanted to say.

There is no conclusion or resolution to what was introduced so I still can't fathom what you are trying to share. It feels like a situation where only half the thoughts hit the page and since we don't know the context we can't fill in the gaps.

Our issues are in the actual writing of the post, not as much what you are trying to say because we can't even get to that.

[TBF-RnD]

First I go through steps of computer evolution: desktops -> laptops -> tablets

When desktops became popular in Sweden computers where rare in say South America.

Now computers are not rare in South America, which is good. The bad thing is that they are common in a consumption only format.

The problem is UI in particular text input. The solution use say gloves as input and VR systems which I predict will be cheaper and broadly available.

Until that happens a huge amount of people are stuck with smart devices, so I'd like to improve the situation. To get there I'm doing my work on a tablet to get a good idea on what works and what doesn't. Why? Because I want teenagers in the rest of the world to be able to have fun with computers as I did.