makers of mobile tech display screens quotation

Top One Tech Ltd. is a touchscreen monitor manufacturer that integrates the design, manufacture, and sale service of open frame Touchscreens, touch display and touch All-in-one computers. Our vision is to serve all customers with heart and grow with you.

At Toponetech touch screen suppliers, we provide high-quality touchscreen monitor prototyping, fast production of samples and low volume manufacturing services to support the development of your monitors and low volumes launching needs. Toponetech touchscreen monitor manufacturer with a team of engineers work to make your touch display ideas a reality through manufacturing technologies like 3D designing, touchscreen selection, controller boards selection, plastic and metal frame CNC machining, a range of finishing services, display assembly, and FQC.

"The final result is incredible... the screens are performing without fail, look amazing in person and on camera, and provide so much more creative flexibility for visuals, than we could ever have imagined. The low latency provides a flawless IMAG experience. Vanguard LED Displays has provided incredible support. I have no doubt that our next LED project will be with Vanguard..."

Transform your design into an innovative product with our electronics manufacturing services. Scale your product with the help of a reliable manufacturing partner.

CCL Tech touch screen Self Service kiosks simplify the ordering process, helping customers find exactly what they want, which fosters customer loyalty and increases customer confidence in the business. Flexible, intuitive and insightful touch screen Self Service kiosk solutions to simplify/speed up ordering, delivery, customer service and boost your bottom line!Future-proof your operations with the right technology and reach your customers at every touchpoint. Direct and enjoyable customer experience, available for fast food stores, coffee shops,library and others.Touch screen Kiosk helps dramatically reduce the time spent by customers waiting in queue at the cash register.

Over the past 20 years, cell phones have evolved from simple devices made for mobile calling to smartphones that serve as mini computers. As phones got smarter, so did their screens. Take a journey back in time to see how modern phone displays came to be.

For the rest of the 1990s and into the 2000s, black-and-white passive matrix screens were the norm. The rows and columns combined to create text, giving off a blocky appearance.

In 2001, Nokia released the first smartphone to feature a monochromatic display. The Nokia 8250 allowed users to change the background from gray to a bright blue. That same year, the Sony Ericsson T68m and Mitsubishi Trium Eclipse were released, offering 256 colors.

Released in June 2007, the iPhone introduced many firsts. It was the first phone with an operating system, responsive touchscreen, and touch interface that replaced the traditional QWERTY keyboard. The phone screen itself comprised a video graphic array (VGA) display and offered a resolution of 320 x 480 – far exceeding other phones at the time.

In the next few years, phone manufacturers followed iPhone’s example and began making devices with multi-touch interfaces, higher screen resolutions, and larger phone screen sizes. In 2011, Samsung unveiled the Samsung Galaxy S2, which featured a 480 x 800 resolution. Then, in 2013, Motorola’s Moto X was thrust onto the scene with a screen size of 720 x 1280 pixels.

Let’s start with LCDs. TFT LCD displays are considered the most common. They deliver quality images and higher resolutions. IPS LCDs, which are mainly found in higher-end smartphones, offer improved battery life and deliver wider viewing angles. These types of displays are often found in iPhones, but by Apple’s proprietary names, “Retina,” or “Super Retina.” Then, there are capacitive touchscreen LCDs, which rely on the touch of a human finger for input.

OLEDs are considered an up-and-coming display technology – they don’t require any backlighting to display pixels. Fundamentally, each pixel emits it own light, allowing for darker blacks and brighter whites. AMOLEDs combine a TFT display with an OLED display for energy savings, while Super AMOLED displays deliver even brighter screens and more power savings.

When choosing a new Net10 phone, you may feel overwhelmed with all the display options available. First, consider the phone screen size. The bigger the phone screen, the bigger the phone. If you’d like to be able to slip your phone easily inside a pocket or purse, opt for a smaller phone size, such as 4-inch, 4.7-inch, or 5-inch. If you’d prefer a bigger screen size for gaming or watching videos, you’ll benefit from choosing a phone with a 5.5-inch, 6.4-inch, or similar size.

Next, you’ll need to consider the display technology. OLED screens are known for their faster response times, better contrast, and longer battery lives. LCD screens, on the other hand, are better for outdoor viewing, deliver a natural color reproduction, and offer sharper images.

Last up? Resolution. If you’re looking for a phone with higher levels of pixel detail, you’ll want a screen resolution of at least 1920 x 1080, or full HD. If picture quality isn’t on the top of your must-have list, you should be safe choosing a lower screen resolution.

After you’ve chosen the right device for your needs, make sure you receive nationwide coverage on one of America’s largest and most dependable 4G LTE† networks – pick out a Net10 service plan.

† To get 4G LTE speed, you must have a 4G LTE capable device and 4G LTE SIM. Actual availability, coverage and speed may vary. LTE is a trademark of ETSI.

이용자는 본 개인정보 수집·이용 동의서에 따른 동의 시, "필요한 최소한의 정보 외의 개인정보" 수집·이용에 동의하지 아니할 권리가 있습니다. 개인정보 처리에 대한 상세한 사항은 삼성 디스플레이 솔루션즈 홈페이지 (https://displaysolutions.samsung.com/)에 공개한 "개인정보처리방침"을 참조하십시오. 다만, 본 동의서 내용과 상충되는 부분은 본 동의서의 내용이 우선합니다.

If there is any concession Gates has made on technology, it"s in the benefits it offers students in certain educational settings. In the years since Gates implemented his household policy, the billionaire philanthropist has taken a keen interest in personalized education, an approach that uses electronic devices to help tailor lesson plans for each student.

In a recent blog post, Gates celebrated Summit Sierra, a Seattle-based school that takes students" personal goals — like getting into a specific college — and devises a path to get there. Teachers in personalized learning settings take on more of a coaching role, helping to nudge students back on track when they get stuck or distracted.

Technology in these cases is being used as specifically as possible — and in ways Gates recognizes as useful for a student"s development, not as entertainment.

"Personalized learning won"t be a cure-all," he wrote. But Gates said he"s "hopeful that this approach could help many more young people make the most of their talents."

You interact with a touch screen monitor constantly throughout your daily life. You will see them in cell phones, ATM’s, kiosks, ticket vending machines, manufacturing plants and more. All of these use touch panels to enable the user to interact with a computer or device without the use of a keyboard or mouse. But did you know there are several uniquely different types of Touch Screens? The five most common types of touch screen are: 5-Wire Resistive, Surface Capacitive touch, Projected Capacitive (P-Cap), SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave), and IR (Infrared).

We are often asked “How does a touch screen monitor work?” A touch screen basically replaces the functionality of a keyboard and mouse. Below is a basic description of 5 types of touch screen monitor technology. The advantages and disadvantages of type of touch screen will help you decide which type touchscreen is most appropriate for your needs:

5-Wire Resistive Touch is the most widely touch technology in use today. A resistive touch screen monitor is composed of a glass panel and a film screen, each covered with a thin metallic layer, separated by a narrow gap. When a user touches the screen, the two metallic layers make contact, resulting in electrical flow. The point of contact is detected by this change in voltage.

Surface Capacitive touch screen is the second most popular type of touch screens on the market. In a surface capacitive touch screen monitor, a transparent electrode layer is placed on top of a glass panel. This is then covered by a protective cover. When an exposed finger touches the monitor screen, it reacts to the static electrical capacity of the human body. Some of the electrical charge transfers from the screen to the user. This decrease in capacitance is detected by sensors located at the four corners of the screen, allowing the controller to determine the touch point. Surface capacitive touch screens can only be activated by the touch of human skin or a stylus holding an electrical charge.

Projected Capacitive (P-Cap) is similar to Surface Capacitive, but it offers two primary advantages. First, in addition to a bare finger, it can also be activated with surgical gloves or thin cotton gloves. Secondly, P-Cap enables multi-touch activation (simultaneous input from two or more fingers). A projected capacitive touch screen is composed of a sheet of glass with embedded transparent electrode films and an IC chip. This creates a three dimensional electrostatic field. When a finger comes into contact with the screen, the ratios of the electrical currents change and the computer is able to detect the touch points. All our P-Cap touch screens feature a Zero-Bezel enclosure.

SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) touch screen monitors utilize a series of piezoelectric transducers and receivers. These are positioned along the sides of the monitor’s glass plate to create an invisible grid of ultrasonic waves on the surface. When the panel is touched, a portion of the wave is absorbed. This allows the receiving transducer to locate the touch point and send this data to the computer. SAW monitors can be activated by a finger, gloved hand, or soft-tip stylus. SAW monitors offer easy use and high visibility.

IR (Infrared) type touch screen monitors do not overlay the display with an additional screen or screen sandwich. Instead, infrared monitors use IR emitters and receivers to create an invisible grid of light beams across the screen. This ensures the best possible image quality. When an object interrupts the invisible infrared light beam, the sensors are able to locate the touch point. The X and Y coordinates are then sent to the controller.

We hope you found these touch screen basics useful. TRU-Vu provides industrial touch screen monitors in a wide range of sizes and configurations. This includes UL60601-1 Medical touch screens, Sunlight Readable touch screens,Open Frame touch screens, Waterproof touch screens and many custom touch screen designs. You can learn more HERE or call us at 847-259-2344. To address safety and hygiene concerns, see our article on “Touch Screen Cleaning and Disinfecting“.

The last two decades have seen an explosion in the use of digital technology. It has accelerated human’s exposure to prolonged screen time which is becoming a growing concern. Digital technology is essentially the use of electronic devices to store, generate or process data; facilitates communication and virtual interactions on social media platforms using the internet (Vizcaino et al., 2020). Electronic devices include computer, laptop, palmtop, smartphone, tablet or any other similar devices with a screen. They are a medium of communication, virtual interactions and connectedness between people. Social connection is fundamental to humans. In addition, social connectedness also enhances mental well-being. COVID-19 pandemic has imposed digital platforms as the only means for people to maintain socio-emotional connection (Kanekar and Sharma, 2020). The digital technology is influencing how people use digital devices to maintain, or avoid social relations or how much time to spend for virtual social connectedness (Antonucci et al., 2017).

Screen time refers to the amount of time spent and the diverse activities performed online using digital devices (DataReportal, 2020). For instance, screen time encompasses both, using digital devices for work purposes (regulated hours of work or educational purpose) as well as for leisure and entertainment (unregulated hours of gaming, viewing pornography or social media use).

The COVID-19 pandemic came with restrictions, regulations and stay-at-home orders. This meant that people stayed indoors, offices remained shut, playgrounds were empty and streets remained barren of human interaction. Many individuals could not return to their homes, many stuck in foreign lands and many in solitude. As a result, the usage of digital devices has increased manifold across the globe. Irrespective of age, people are pushed to rely on digital platforms. Education, shopping, working, meeting, entertaining and socializing suddenly leaped from offline to online. Here, digital technology came as a blessing in disguise, enabling individuals to remain emotionally connected despite the social distancing. At the same time, prolonged screen time has caused concerns related to its impact on physical and mental health. While mindful (and regulated) use of digital devices is linked with well-being, excessive screen time is reported to be associated with a range of negative mental health outcomes such as psychological problems, low emotional stability, and greater risk for depression or anxiety (Allen et al., 2019; Aziz Rahman et al., 2020; Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020). Negative consequences often result when digital use is impulsive, compulsive, unregulated or addictive (Kuss and Lopez-Fernandez, 2016).

Restricted social interactions imposed by the pandemic aggravated the over-use of digital devices for socializing which included virtual dates, virtual tourism, virtual parties, and family conferences (Pandey and Pal, 2020). Notably, in times of social distancing; there is a possibility that screen time may not negatively interfere with well-being as it is the only way to remain socially connected. However, mindful use of the digital screen time needs to be under the check. The unprecedented digital life during the pandemic also gave rise to increased levels of anxiety, sad mood, uncertainty and negative emotions like irritability and aggression, a normative response to pandemic (Rajkumar, 2020). However, anxiety and aggression also meant an increase in cybercrimes and cyber-attacks (Lallie et al., 2021). This has raised concerns about the impact of screen time on mental health. A survey recorded about 50–70 percent increase in internet use during the COVID-19 pandemic and of that 50 percent of the time was spent engaging on social media in 2020 (Beech, 2020). Reiterating, it is difficult to discrepantly state healthy versus unhealthy extents of social connectedness over digital media; however, negative effects of digital technology are undeniable. Interesting to note is the fact that though digital health technology boomed, digital health and well-being demanded a lot more attention with prolonged hours being spent on the screen. Numerous studies have highlighted the increased screen time propelled by COVID-19; however, they are scattered. The present review synthesises the evidence on the use of digital technology in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on health and summarizes recommendations reported in the literature to foster positive health. It also identifies recommended digital habits to optimize screen time and warrant protection from its ill effects. Lastly, it introduces a multipronged approach to prevent adverse effects of prolonged screen time and promote healthy digital habits.

References for this review were identified through searches of PubMed, PsychINFO, and Google Scholar with the search terms “screen time,” “social connectedness,” “digital habits,” “health” and “COVID-19” from January 2020 until June 2021. These keywords were combined with Boolean operators to narrow down the search results. Manual searches were executed to identify additional articles based on the references mentioned in the articles selected for full- text review. Records published in English language were considered for the review. The initial search yielded 1,038 records (PubMed-137; PsychINFO-12; Google Scholar-889) of which 636 were excluded based on title review and duplications. Later 343 records were rejected based on the abstract review and 59 records were selected for full text reviews. Out of which, a total of 36 records (29 peer-reviewed articles & seven newspaper articles & blogs) met the inclusion criteria and were finally selected for the scoping review. The PRISMA chart is presented in Figure 1. The final reference list was generated on the basis of originality and relevance to the broad scope of this Review.

The literature search was done separately by two researchers (AP and PL). Initially selected records were coded in the domains such as author’s name, year of publication, type of publication, country of study conducted, screen time in the COVID-19, impact of increased screen time, and strategies for optimizing use of digital devices. The results were matched by repeating search exercises using keywords and removed duplicating and unqualified records based on the exclusion criteria. Full text of selected records was critically appraised. Overall data synthesis was reviewed by all authors.

Of the 36 selected records, 29 articles were peer-reviewed (15 original research, two meta-analyses, five systematic reviews; four editorials/commentaries and three guidelines) and the rest seven were news articles and blogs. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of methodology and types of research. Most original studies were cross-sectional research and one study adapted a mixed method research approach. Records selected were published from 10 countries (Table 1), the majority of them were published in the United States (8) followed by that in India (6).

Recent meta-analyses (Hancock et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) have indicated mixed results from no significant impact to moderate impact of digital screen time on health and psychological well-being. Authors reported that discrepant positive and negative effects of screen time is contingent on what kind of the digital activity engaged in.

There isn’t a singular aspect of social, economic or political development that has escaped the rapid and deep trenched transformation of the digital revolution. The lockdown induced by COVID-19 pandemic has been a unique social experiment that has impacted our social relationships and how we connect interpersonally. Some relations strengthened while others came under severe strain.

During the pandemic induced lockdown, people turned to social media, messaging applications and video conferencing platforms. These platforms provided people with an opportunity to stay connected (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Social connection and interaction is one of the strongest predictors of well-being, thus potentially impacting the mental health of a person. Research conducted to understand the impact of digital social interactions on well-being has shown both positive and negative effects (Gurvich et al., 2020; Pandey and Pal, 2020). Overall, people who spend some time using digital and social media are happier than those who do not use internet at all, but those who spend the most time online tend to be the least happy (Qin et al., 2020). For working people, checking email and being interrupted by digital messages was found to be linked with experiencing greater stress. Given that digital communications have increased manifold during the pandemic, these negative aspects of digital interactions may only be magnified while social distancing. Indispensable to note is that this is not a simplistic correlational understanding, there are several factors like personality traits, existing social support, thriving environment and balance with in-person communication bound to affect the screen time impact. Many people rely on technology to build and sustain relationships but at times over dependence on digital technology leaves people feeling qualitatively empty and alone. There is a need to regulate the digital social connectedness which can be established by mindful and healthy digital habits that can promote a balance between plugging in and unplugging, consequently impacting well-being and mental health.

Technology has had a profound impact on what it means to be social, challenging its overhauling essence. Furthermore, the coronavirus has atrophied the social skills of many individuals in the absence of peers. With most of us too used to interacting on digital platforms, we have missed the subtler nuances of what it means to exercise our social skills and etiquettes around people; which is only likely to surge especially when social distancing will fade. In COVID-19 times, it is important to question if over-engagement in being socially connected through digital technology (and social media platforms) is compulsive, negative use or a healthy coping mechanism? Another question that surfaces is also that social connectedness was promoted by digital platforms earlier that were organically blended by fact-to-face communication, but with physical distancing, how much does digital media facilitate social connectedness.

Several research studies during the pandemic period (in countries like India, China, United States, Canada and Australia) have delineated the problem with increasing screen time. As aforementioned, COVID-19 aggravated use of digital devices and consequently its impact on health colossally (Bahkir and Grandee, 2020; Gupta, 2020; Ko and Yen, 2020; Moore et al., 2020; Small et al., 2020; Ting et al., 2020). Overall digital device usage increased by 5 h, giving a plunge to screen time up to 17.5 h per day for heavy users and an average of 30 h per week for non-heavy users (Balhara et al., 2020; Dienlin and Johannes, 2020; Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020; Vanderloo et al., 2020; Xiang et al., 2020). A recent study, (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020) reported 8.8 h of screen time among younger adults and 5.2 h among elderly (>65 years old), presenting concerns among these populations too. A recent narrative review discusses that screen time increased for children and adults (men and women) during the pandemic (as compared to pre-pandemic times) globally. The jump in screen time among children and adolescents was noted to be higher than what is the prescribed screen time by American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (from the recommended hours to more than 6 h). For adults, screen time has been between more than 60–80% from before the pandemic. However, there aren"t any comparative studies to state exact differences for the same (Sultana et al., 2021). Another report prepared by the UNICEF had pointed out the several gaps and methodological limitations in evidence-based literature supporting the validity and utility of having arbitrary screen-time cutoffs in today"s digital world (Kardefelt-Winther, 2017).

Research has delineated negative impacts of increased screen time on physical and mental health. Problematic screen time is characterized by obsessive, excessive, compulsive, impulsive and hasty use of digital devices (Lodha, 2018).

Children and youth showed lowered physical activity levels, less outdoor time, higher sedentary behaviour that included leisure screen time and more sleep during the coronavirus outbreak (Bahkir and Grandee, 2020). Sudden increase in complaints of irritability without internet connectivity and smartphone; gambling, inability to concentrate; absenteeism in online educational classes or work due to disturbed sleep cycle, and unavoidable excessive use of smart-phones have been reported in the media (Smith et al., 2020).

The two crucial negative impacts of screen time on the physical health of children & adolescents is that of sleep problems and increased risk of myopia (Singh and Balhara, 2021). A large number of original studies indicate excessive screen time has adverse health effects in long run such as physical health symptoms like eye strain, sleep disturbance, carpal tunnel syndrome, neck pain as well as mental health problems ranging from difficulties in concentration, obsession to diagnosable mental illness such as anxiety, depression and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Király et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2020; Oberle et al., 2020; Stavridou et al., 2021). In a study (George et al., 2018) with older adolescents aged between 18 and 20, researchers found that smartphone dependency can predict higher reports of depressive symptoms and loneliness. Another study (Twenge et al., 2018) revealed that the generation of teens, known as “iGen”–born after 1995–are more likely to experience mental health issues than counterparts–their millennial predecessors.

The mental health impacts of excessive digital use include attention-deficit symptoms, impaired emotional and social intelligence, social isolation, phantom vibration syndrome, and diagnosable mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety, and technology addiction like gaming disorder (Amin et al., 2020; Dienlin and Johannes, 2020; King et al., 2020; Lanca and Saw, 2020; Lodha and De Sousa, 2020; Oswald et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2020; Xiang et al., 2020; Hudimova, 2021; Wong et al., 2021). Though digital devices kept many socially and emotionally connected, screen time also resulted in experiences of irritability, corona-anxiety, sleep problems, emotional exhaustion, isolation, social media fatigue and screen fatigue and phantom vibration syndrome (Gurvich et al., 2020; Lodha and De Sousa, 2020; Hudimova, 2021). Although few studies highlight the psychiatric disorders (Stiglic and Viner, 2019) among children and adolescents with excessive screen time use, the correlation between psychological well being and screen time among these populations remains inconsistent. The qualitative versus quantitative engagement with screen time is a prime factor to study its consequential effects.

The WHO highlighted that increased screen time replaces healthy behaviours and habits like physical activity and sleep routine, and leads to potentially harmful effects such as reduced sleep or day-night reversal, headaches, neck pain, myopia, digital eye syndrome and cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, high blood pressure, and insulin resistance due to increase in sedentary time among adults (World Health Organization, 2020). Evidently, increased screen time has alarmingly caused collateral damage to optical health, eating habits and sleep routine (Di Renzo et al., 2020; Gupta et al., 2020; Lanca and Saw, 2020; Wong et al., 2021). Studies have found association between excess screen time and poor mental health among adults (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020).

Quintessentially, the perception of the individual users and their kind of engagements (how they use and what they do), rather than mere longer duration, make screen time negative or positive (Twenge and Campbell, 2018). This has been ascertained by a large study done by Google as well (Google, 2019).

Despite the potential adverse effects of screen time on health, it is impossible to abstain from screen time in modern times. Oftentimes, the most successful tactics to minimize technology harm are not technical at all, but behavioural such as self-imposed limitations on use of digital platforms, using non-digital means when possible and using digital platforms for better health and well-being.

Unregulated amounts of screen time may lead to adverse effects on health. Studies clearly indicate differences in the effects of regulated, rational use and actively engaging with the digital devices than passively absorbing what is on the screen (Bahkir and Grandee, 2020; Dienlin and Johannes, 2020; Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020; Pandey and Pal, 2020; Winther and Byrne, 2020). Digital devices can be adapted for numerous positive activities such as online exercise classes, mindfulness training, webinars on healthy lifestyles, and so on (Harvard Pilgrim HealthCare, 2021). Table 2 presents a synthesis of strategies recommended in reviewed studies that promote healthy digital habits among adults.

3. Actively giving up phone phubbing (the act of snubbing someone you"re talking with in person in favour of your phone) and connecting with people around.

6. Use of mobile applications for promoting digital wellbeing. Mobile health apps are becoming increasingly popular to stay socially connected as well as aid mental wellbeing.

It is inevitable to realize the need to be socially connected with one another which has also led to momentous increase in screen time during the COVID-19 induced lockdown. Literature on screen time is reflective of both positive and negative consequences of screen time on (mental) health. Perhaps, digital technology offered a platform to deal with psychological reactions fuelled by COVID-19 if it were for a shorter period. However, the prolonged period of the pandemic has led the use of digital technology to culminate into threat for people’s physical as well as mental health. Literacy about digital habits and parental supervision on children"s digital habits command attention. Increased use of games among youth is concerning. Indispensable to note is that digital habits must be balanced with the non-connected activities. It is important to be cognizant of what are the absolutes where one can depend on digital devices for convenience and betterment versus where one needs to pause and disconnect.

A concerted and evidence informed effort with a three-pronged approach is imperative to promote social connectedness while ensuring to prevent the ill effects of prolonged screen time. We propose immediate, intermediate and long-term strategies to promote healthy digital habits among communities during COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. They are described in the following sections and summarized in Table 3.

Promoting healthy digital habits is imperative. Although potentially challenging, public campaigns and establishing a reliable platform for sharing information regarding healthy digital habits are imperative. Using a behaviour change communication approach, people can be educated on signs of excessive screen time or gaming, healthy digital habits and available screening and treatment services. Partnership with digital media giants (such as IT companies, social media companies) to promote healthy digital habits, positive use of digital media can be scrutinized.

One of the intermediate measures can be developing digital health guidelines and standardized screening tools, remedial and treatment protocols (for treating internet addiction, gaming disorder, or online gambling) in localized contexts. Educational institutions, corporates and (mental) health agencies can comfortably ensure implementation of such guidelines. Further, establishing a strong referral for management of severe consequences of screen-time is indispensable.

Another measure is to embed digital health education into school and university curriculums. This may range from incorporating signs and symptoms of excessive screen time and risky digital habits in schools and universities, to setting the foundations of digital health modules in health and medical education.

In the evolving pandemic, restrained resources, economic and political pressure create a challenging atmosphere to promote evidence informed policy making and legislation. Despite these challenges, evidence-informed policy and legislations for protecting rights of people for monitoring digital use patterns and privacy of patients’ using telehealth services should take the forefront. Thus, incorporating screen-time and its consequences in the national health surveys can be an important policy decision to generate population level data as a long-term strategic plan.

Machine learning and big data analytics can be potential in understanding digital screen usage. The screenome project (Reeves et al., 2021) is an initiative that studies duration of screen time, specific content observed, created and/or shared, exposures to apps, social media, games etc. Such data catalyses to inform policy, maximizing the potential of digital devices and interventions to remedy its most pernicious effects.

Interventions to reduce distress and lifestyle modification along with diurnal practices to regulate screen time can potentially promote positive mental health while rejoicing in the inescapable digital use. Moreover, longitudinal studies can help assess digital habits across all ages, its impact on physical and mental health and cost-effectiveness of healthy digital habits promotion interventions in low-and-middle-income countries.

Largely, evidence indicates negative effects of prolonged screen time on health including mental health. Although digital technology provides avenues to connect socially, over indulgence or over use of digital devices can be harmful in the long-term. Promoting healthy digital habits and positive use of digital technology is inexorable to avert ill effects of excessive screen time. While it is important to adopt critical measures to cease the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary to assess and mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on screen-time and prevent potential negative consequences. Having visited the impact of screen time on health, it calls for individual as well as systemic level action. Adapting immediate, short-term and long-term strategic measures can help scrutinize digital use and screen time not only amidst the regulations of COVID-19 but also ahead, considering that digitalisation is the way forward. Empowering individuals to make scientific-information based decisions is the need of the hour to mitigate these ill-effects. Building and imbibing healthy digital habits is a promising preventive measure conducive to health in the light of globally growing digitalisation.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Allen, M. S., Walter, E. E., and Swann, C. (2019). Sedentary Behaviour and Risk of Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 242, 5–13. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.081

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (2020). Media Habits During COVID-19: Children & Teens on Screens in Quarantine. Available at: https://www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/Docs/resource_libraries/covid-19/Screen- Time-During-COVID.pdf.

Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J., and Manalel, J. A. (2017). Social Relations and Technology: Continuity, Context, and Change. Innov. Aging. 1, igx029. doi:10.1093/geroni/igx029

Bahkir, F., and Grandee, S. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Digital Device-Related Ocular Health. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 68 (11), 2378. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_2306_20

Balhara, Y. S., Kattula, D., Singh, S., Chukkali, S., and Bhargava, R. (2020). Impact of Lockdown Following COVID-19 on the Gaming Behavior of College Students. Indian J. Public Health. 64 (Supplement), S172–S176. doi:10.4103/ijph.ijph_465_20

Dienlin, T., and Johannes, N. (2020). The Impact of Digital Technology Use on Adolescent Well-Being. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 22 (2), 135–142. doi:10.31887/dcns.2020.22.2/tdienlin

George, M. J., Russell, M. A., Piontak, J. R., and Odgers, C. L. (2018). Concurrent and Subsequent Associations Between Daily Digital Technology Use and High-Risk Adolescents’ Mental Health Symptoms. Child. Dev. 89 (1), 78–88. doi:10.1111/cdev.12819

Hudimova, A. (2021). Adolescents’ Involvement in Social Media: Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Soc. Sci. 1 (29). doi:10.31435/rsglobal_ijitss/30032021/7370

Kanekar, A., and Sharma, M. (2020). COVID-19 and Mental Well-Being: Guidance on the Application of Behavioral and Positive Well-Being Strategies. Healthcare 8 (3), 336. doi:10.3390/healthcare8030336

Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2017). How Does the Time Children Spend Using Digital Technology Impact Their Mental Well-Being, Social Relationships and Physical Activity? an Evidence-Focused Literature Review. Florence: Innocenti Discussion Paper 2017-02. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti.

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., and Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 54 (3), 241–251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

Ko, C.-H., and Yen, J.-Y. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on Gaming Disorder: Monitoring and Prevention. J. Behav. Addict. 9, 187–189. doi:10.1556/2006.2020.00040

Kuss, D. J., and Lopez-Fernandez, O. (2016). Internet Addiction and Problematic Internet use: A Systematic Review of Clinical Research. World J Psychiatry. 6 (1), 143. doi:10.5498/wjp.v6.i1.143

Lallie, H. S., Shepherd, L. A., Nurse, J. R. C., Erola, A., Epiphaniou, G., Maple, C., et al. (2021). Cyber Security in the age of COVID-19: A Timeline and Analysis of Cyber-Crime and Cyber-Attacks During the Pandemic. Comput. Security. 105, 102248. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2021.102248

Lodha, P., and De Sousa, A. (2020). Mental Health Perspectives of COVID-19 and the Emerging Role of Digital Mental Health and Telepsychiatry. Arch. Med. Health Sci. 8 (1), 133. doi:10.4103/amhs.amhs_82_20

Ministry of Human Resource Development (2020). The New Education Policy 2020. Available at: https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf.

Moore, S. A., Faulkner, G., Rhodes, R. E., Brussoni, M., Chulak-Bozzer, T., Ferguson, L. J., et al. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 Virus Outbreak on Movement and Play Behaviours of Canadian Children and Youth: A National Survey. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 17 (1), 85–11. doi:10.1186/s12966-020-00987-8

Oswald, T. K., Rumbold, A. R., Kedzior, S. G. E., and Moore, V. M. (2020). Psychological Impacts of “Screen Time” and “Green Time” for Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Scoping Review. PLoS One 15 (9), e0237725. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237725

Pandey, N., and Pal, A. (2020). Impact of Digital Surge during Covid-19 Pandemic: A Viewpoint on Research and Practice. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 55, 102171. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196

Reeves, B., Ram, N., Robinson, T. N., Cummings, J. J., Giles, C. L. Giles., Pan, J., et al. (2021). Screenomics: A Framework to Capture and Analyze Personal Life Experiences and the Ways that Technology Shapes Them. Hum. Comput. Interact. 36 (2), 150–201. doi:10.1080/07370024.2019.1578652

Rolland, B., Haesebaert, F., Zante, E., Benyamina, A., Haesebaert, J., and Franck, N. (2020). Global Changes and Factors of Increase in Caloric/salty Food Intake, Screen Use, and Substance Use During the Early COVID-19 Containment Phase in the General Population in France: Survey Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 6, e19630. doi:10.2196/19630

Small, G. W., Lee, J., Kaufman, A., Jalil, J., Siddarth, P., Gaddipati, H., et al. (2020). Brain Health Consequences of Digital Technology Use. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 22 (2), 179–187. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/gsmall

Stiglic, N., and Viner, R. M. (2019). Effects of Screentime on the Health and Well-Being of Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Reviews. BMJ Open. 9, e023191. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023191

Ting, D. S. W., Carin, L., Dzau, V., and Wong, T. Y. (2020). Digital Technology and COVID-19. Nat. Med. 26 (4), 459–461. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0824-5

Winther, D. K., and Byrne, J. (2020). Rethinking Screen-Time in the Time of COVID-19. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/stories/rethinking-screen-time-time-covid-19.

World Health Organization (2020). Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Excessive Screen Use and Gaming Considerations during COVID19. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/333467.

Xiang, Mi., Zhang, Z., and Kuwahara, K. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Adolescents’ Lifestyle Behavior Larger Than Expected. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 63, 531–532. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2020.04.013

Always on display (sometimes rendered Always On Display, always-on display, or similar; AOD) is a smartphone feature that has the device continue to show limited information while the phone is asleep. It is widely available on Android handsets, and is available on Apple iPhones since the iPhone 14 Pro.notification LED.

A device with AOD enabled keeps a limited portion of the screen on during sleep mode. An Always On Display may display a set of recent push notifications in place of a notification tone or LED signal, as well as information such as the time, date, and battery status of the device; they often may also be configured to also show various types of notifications as they arrive, or screensavers.

Various devices have differing behavior for this feature. Some phones would have the screen off until new notifications arrive whereupon the display would either be active for a few seconds or remain on until the user interacts with the device to read or dismiss the notification (essentially having the entire screen serve as a larger notification LED); others instead have the phone screen activate when it detects input, such as being picked up or the screen interacted with. These versions are often called ambient displays,

This technology was first introduced by Nokia in on the Nokia N70 and Nokia 6303 (on TFT display in 2008), and more widely adopted with its next generation AMOLED Symbian phones in 2010 (the Nokia N8, C7, C6-01 and E7). It became a standard feature on most Nokia Lumia Windows Phones in 2013, paired with the Nokia Glance Screen app.Apple Watch Series 5 (2019) and on iPhone 14 Pro in 2022.

The Always On Display feature does consume energy, although the Samsung Galaxy S7 series phones, and later phones that made the feature popular are built with AMOLED screens that turn off black pixels. On today"s AMOLED phone displays, it is true that only a few pixels may need to be turned on but they do need to be moved to prevent pixel burn in. Colors, sensors and processors all consume energy while AOD is in use, which leads to an extra consumption of roughly 3% battery.

On LCD displays, the backlight has to be turned on, even if only a part of the screen is showing information, so this feature consumes a significant amount of power compared to a notification LED.

Typically, an ambient display solution which turns on the screen only when notifications are present, remains on, but turns off when they are dismissed will consume the least amount of battery power while still drawing the user"s attention when required, in contrast to an Always-on Display which will keep the screen on, all of the time, to show some information, even if notifications may not be present. Since the date and time are less essential than battery status or notifications which may require the user"s immediate attention, an AOD can be customized in many app-based implementations to only show notifications or selectively choose what is shown.

In some phones, the Always On Display/Ambient Display feature can be toggled on a schedule, such as during nighttime, or when the proximity sensor detects that the device is in a pocket. There may be an option for the phone to keep the screen on only when there are notifications to be acknowledged or dismissed by the user.

A flexible display or rollable display is an electronic visual display which is flexible in nature, as opposed to the traditional flat screen displays used in most electronic devices.e-readers, mobile phones and other consumer electronics. Such screens can be rolled up like a scroll without the image or text being distorted.electronic ink, Gyricon, Organic LCD, and OLED.

Electronic paper displays which can be rolled up have been developed by E Ink. At CES 2006, Philips showed a rollable display prototype, with a screen capable of retaining an image for several months without electricity.pixel rollable display based on E Ink’s electrophoretic technology.flexible organic light-emitting diode displays have been demonstrated.electronic paper wristwatch. A rollable display is an important part of the development of the roll-away computer.

With the flat panel display having already been widely used more than 40 years, there have been many desired changes in the display technology, focusing on developing a lighter, thinner product that was easier to carry and store. Through the development of rollable displays in recent years, scientists and engineers agree that flexible flat panel display technology has huge market potential in the future.

Flexible electronic paper (e-paper) based displays were the first flexible displays conceptualized and prototyped. Though this form of flexible displays has a long history and were attempted by many companies, it is only recently that this technology began to see commercial implementations slated for mass production to be used in consumer electronic devices.

The concept of developing a flexible display was first put forth by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Company). In 1974, Nicholas K. Sheridon, a PARC employee, made a major breakthrough in flexible display technology and produced the first flexible e-paper display. Dubbed Gyricon, this new display technology was designed to mimic the properties of paper, but married with the capacity to display dynamic digital images. Sheridon envisioned the advent of paperless offices and sought commercial applications for Gyricon.

In 2005, Arizona State University opened a 250,000 square foot facility dedicated to flexible display research named the ASU Flexible Display Center (FDC). ASU received $43.7 million from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) towards the development of this research facility in February 2004.demonstration later that year.Hewlett Packard demonstrated a prototype flexible e-paper from the Flexible Display Center at the university.

Between 2004–2008, ASU developed its first small-scale flexible displays.U.S. Army funds ASU’s development of the flexible display, the center’s focus is on commercial applications.

This company develops and manufactures monochrome plastic flexible displays in various sizes based on its proprietary organic thin film transistor (OTFT) technology. They have also demonstrated their ability to produce colour displays with this technology, however they are currently not capable of manufacturing them on a large scale.Dresden, Germany, which was the first factory of its kind to be built – dedicated to the high volume manufacture of organic electronics.plastic and do not contain glass. They are also lighter and thinner than glass-based displays and low-power. Applications of this flexible display technology include signage,wristwatches and wearable devices

In 2004, a team led by Prof. Roel Vertegaal at Queen"s University"s Human Media Lab in Canada developed PaperWindows,Organic User Interface. Since full-colour, US Letter-sized displays were not available at the time, PaperWindows deployed a form of active projection mapping of computer windows on real paper documents that worked together as one computer through 3D tracking. At a lecture to the Gyricon and Human-Computer Interaction teams at Xerox PARC on 4 May 2007, Prof. Vertegaal publicly introduced the term Organic User Interface (OUI) as a means of describing the implications of non-flat display technologies on user interfaces of the future: paper computers, flexible form factors for computing devices, but also encompassing rigid display objects of any shape, with wrap-around, skin-like displays. The lecture was published a year later as part of a special issue on Organic User InterfacesCommunications of the ACM. In May 2010, the Human Media Lab partnered with ASU"s Flexible Display Center to produce PaperPhone,MorePhone

Research and development into flexible OLED displays largely began in the late 2000s with the main intentions of implementing this technology in mobile devices. However, this technology has recently made an appearance, to a moderate extent, in consumer television displays as well.

Nokia first conceptualized the application of flexible OLED displays in mobile phone with the Nokia Morph concept mobile phone. Released to the press in February 2008, the Morph concept was project Nokia had co-developed with the University of Cambridge.nanotechnology, it pioneered the concept of utilizing a flexible video display in a consumer electronics device.London, alongside Nokia’s new range of Windows Phone 7 devices.

Sony Electronics expressed interest for research and development towards a flexible display video display since 2005.RIKEN (the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research), Sony promised to commercialize this technology in TVs and cellphones sometime around 2010.TFT-driven OLED display.

In January 2013, Samsung exposed its brand new, unnamed product during the company"s keynote address at CES in Las Vegas. Brian Berkeley, the senior vice president of Samsung"s display lab in San Jose, California had announced the development of flexible displays. He said "the technology will let the company"s partners make bendable, rollable, and foldable displays," and he demonstrated how the new phone can be rollable and flexible during his speech.

During Samsung"s CES 2013 keynote presentation, two prototype mobile devices codenamed "Youm" that incorporated the flexible AMOLED display technology were shown to the public.OLED screen giving this phone deeper blacks and a higher overall contrast ratio with better power efficiency than traditional LCD displays.LCD displays. Samsung stated that "Youm" panels will be seen in the market in a short time and production will commence in 2013.

Samsung subsequently released the Galaxy Round, a smartphone with an inward curving screen and body, in October 2013.Galaxy Note Edge released in 2014.Galaxy S series with the release of the Galaxy S6 Edge, a variant of the S6 model with a screen sloped over both sides of the device.foldable smartphone prototype, which was subsequently revealed in February 2019 as the Galaxy Fold.

The Flexible Display Center (FDC) at Arizona State University announced a continued effort in forwarding flexible displays in 2012.Army Research Lab scientists, ASU announced that it has successfully manufactured the world"s largest flexible OLED display using thin-film transistor (TFTs) technology.

In January 2019, Chinese manufacturer Xiaomi showed a foldable smartphone prototype.Xiaomi demoed the device in a video on the Weibo social network. The device features a large foldable display that curves 180 degrees inwards on two sides. The tablet turns into a smartphone, with a screen diagonal of 4,5 inch, adjusting the user interface on the fly.

Flexible displays have many advantages over glass: better durability, lighter weight, thinner as plastic, and can be perfectly curved and used in many devices.glass and rollable display is that the display area of a rollable display can be bigger than the device itself; If a flexible device measuring, for example, 5 inches in diagonal and a roll of 7.5mm, it can be stored in a device smaller than the screen itself and close to 15mm in thickness.

Flexible screens can open the doors to novel and alternative authentication schemes by emphasizing the interaction between the user and the touch screen. In “Bend Passwords: Using Gestures to Authenticate on Flexible Devices,” the authors introduce a new method called Bend Passwords where users perform bending gestures and deform the touch screen to unlock the phone. Their work and research points to Bend Passwords possibly becoming a new way to keep smartphones secure alongside the popularization of flexible displays.

Flexible displays using electronic paper technology commonly use Electrophoretic or Electrowetting technologies. However, each type of flexible electronic paper vary in specification due to different implementation techniques by different companies.

The flexible electronic paper display technology co-developed by Arizona State University and HP employs a manufacturing process developed by HP Labs called Self-Aligned Imprint Lithography (SAIL).

The flexible electronic paper display announced by AUO is unique as it is the only solar powered variant. A separate rechargeable battery is also attached when solar charging is unavailable.

Many of the e-paper based flexible displays are based on OLED technology and its variants. Though this technology is relatively new in comparison with e-paper based flexible displays, implementation of OLED flexible displays saw considerable growth in the last few years.

In May 2011, Human Media Lab at Queen"s University in Canada introduced PaperPhone, the first flexible smartphone, in partnership with the Arizona State University Flexible Display Center.

At CES 2013, Samsung showcased the two handsets which incorporates AMOLED flexible display technology during its keynote presentation, the Youm and an unnamed Windows Phone 8 prototype device.Galaxy Note Edge,Samsung Galaxy S series devices.

LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics both introduced curved OLED televisions with a curved display at CES 2013 hours apart from each other.The Verge noted the subtle curve on 55" Samsung OLED TV allowed it to have a "more panoramic, more immersive viewing experience, and actually improves viewing angles from the side."

Crawford, Gregory P., ed. (2005). Flexible flat panel displays (Reprinted with corrections. ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. p. 2. ISBN 978-0470870488.

Thryft, Ann R. (7 June 2012). "All-Plastic Electronics Power Flexible Color Display". Design News. Archived from the original on 31 March 2019. Retrieved 24 April 2013.

Holman, D., Vertegaal, R. and Troje, N. (2005). PaperWindows: Interaction Techniques for Digital Paper. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 591–599.

Lahey, Byron; Girouard, Audrey; Burleson, Winslow and Vertegaal, Roel (May 2011). PaperPhone: Understanding the Use of Bend Gestures in Mobile Devices with Flexible Electronic Paper Displays, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pages 1303–1312.

Gomes, A., Nesbitt, A., and Vertegaal, R. (2013) MorePhone: A Study Of Actuated Shape Deformations for Flexible Thin-Film Smartphone Notifications. In Proceedings of ACM CHI’13 Conference on Human Factors in Computing. ACM Press, 2013, pp. 583–592.

Nokia Press Center (25 February 2008). "Nokia and University of Cambridge launch the Morph – a nanotechnology concept device". Nokia. Archived from the original on 27 February 2018. Retrieved 12 February 2013.

Nokia Press Center (26 October 2011). "Nokia showcases bold portfolio of new phones, services and accessories at Nokia World". Nokia. Archived from the original on 27 January 2013. Retrieved 12 February 2013.

Lee, Reuben (10 January 2013). "Samsung shows off flexible display phones at CES keynote". CNET. Archived from the original on 17 February 2013. Retrieved 12 February 2013.

Sasaoka, Tatsuya; Sekiya, Mitsunobu; Yumoto, Akira; Yamada, Jiro; Hirano, Takashi; Iwase, Yuichi; Yamada, Takao; Ishibashi, Tadashi; Mori, Takao; Asano, Mitsuru; Tamura, Shinichiro; Urabe, Tetsuo (1 January 2001). "24.4L: Late-News Paper: A 13.0-inch AM-OLED Display with Top Emitting Structure and Adaptive Current Mode Programmed Pixel Circuit (TAC)". SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers. 32 (1): 384. doi:10.1889/1.1831876. S2CID 59976823.

Drzaic, P.; Comiskey, B.; Albert, J. D.; Zhang, L.; Loxley, A.; Feeney, R.; Jacobson, J. (1 January 1998). "44.3L: A Printed and Rollable Bistable Electronic Display". SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers. 29 (1): 1131. doi:10.1889/1.1833686. S2CID 135723096.

Lowensohn, Josh (9 January 2013). "Eyes-on: Samsung"s Youm flexible-display tech at CES 2013". CNET. Archived from the original on 26 November 2013. Retrieved 12 February 2013.

The very first mobile phones were not really mobile phones at all. They were two-way radios that allowed people like taxi drivers and the emergency services to communicate.

Instead of relying on base stations with separate cells (and the signal being passed from one cell to another), the first mobile phone networks involved one very powerful base station covering a much wider area.

These early mobile phones are often referred to as 0G mobile phones, or Zero Generation mobile phones. Most phones today rely on 3G or 4G mobile technology.

In later years, the main challenges have laid in the development of interoperable standard and coping with the explosive success and ever increasing demand for bandwidth and reliability. By tracking how mobile phone statistics have changed over time, we are able to see how these devices have evolved to the smartphones we use today.

1926: The first successful mobile telephony service was offered to first class passengers on the Deutsche Reichsbahn on the route between Berlin and Hamburg.

1946: The first calls were made on a car radiotelephone in Chicago. Due to the small number of radio frequencies available, the service quickly reached capacity.

1956: The first automated mobile phone system for private vehicles launched in Sweden. The device to install in the car used vacuum tube technology with rotary dial and weighed 40Kg.

1969: The Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) Group was established. It included engineers representing Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Its purpose was to develop a mobile phone system that, unlike the systems being introduced in the US, focused on accessibility.

1973: Dr Martin Cooper general manager at Motorola communications system division made the first public mobile phone call on a device that weighed 1.1Kg.

1982: Engineers and administrators from eleven European countries gathered in Stockholm to consider whether a Europe wide digital cellular phone system was technically and politically possible. The group adopted the nordic model of cooperation and laid the foundation of an international standard.

1985: Comedian Ernie Wise made the first “public” mobile phone call in the UK from outside the Dicken’s Pub in St Catherine’s dock to Vodafone’s HQ. He made the call in full Dickensian coachman’s garb.

1987: The Technical specifications for the GSM standard are approved. Based on digital technology, it focused on interoperability across national boundaries and consequent different frequency bands, call quality and low costs.

1992: The world’s first ever SMS message was sent in the UK. Neil Papworth, aged 22 at the time was a developer for a telecom contractor tasked with developing a messaging service for Vodafone. The text message read “Merry Christmas” and was sent to Richard Jarvis, a director at Vodafone, who was enjoying his office Christmas party.

1996/97: UK phone ownership stood at 16% of households. A decade later the figure was 80%. The explosion in growth was in part driven the launch of the first pay as you go, non-contract phone service, Vodafone Prepaid, in 1996.

1998: The first downloadable content sold to mobile phones was the ringtone, launched by Finland"s Radiolinja, laying the groundwork for an industry that would eventually see the Crazy Frog ringtone rack up total earnings of half a billion dollars and beat stadium-filling sob-rockers Coldplay to the number one spot in the UK charts.

The same year in the UK sees the first shots fired in a supermarket price war, with Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda selling Pay and Go phones at discounted prices. For the first time, you could pick up a mobile phone for just under £40.

The first BlackBerry phone was also unveiled in 1999. Famous for its super-easy email service, BlackBerry handsets were seen as the ultimate business tool, allowing users to read and respond to emails from anywhere. This led to 83% of users reading and responding to work emails while on holiday, and over half admitted to sending emails on the toilet, winning the manufacturer the nickname CrackBerry.

Over in Japan, the first commercially available camera phone The Sharp J-SH04, launched in November 2000 in Japan. The only snag? you could only use it in Japan. Europe wouldn’t get its first camera phone until the arrival of the Nokia 6750 in 2002.

2003: The 3G standard started to be adopted worldwide, kicking off the age of mobile internet and paving the way for the rise of smartphones. Honk Kong-based Hutchinson Wampoa owned Three brand offered the first 3G network connection in the UK among other countries.

Nepal was one of the first countries in southern Asia to launch 3G services. One of Nepal’s first companies to offer the service, Ncell, also covered Mount Everest with 3G.

2008: The first Android phone turned up, in the form of the T-Mobile G1. Now dubbed the O.G of Android phones, it was a long way from the high-end Android smartphones we use today. Not least because it retained a physical keyboard and a BlackBerry-style trackball for navigation.

This year also saw the advent of both Apple’s App Store and Android Market, later renamed Google Play Store, paving the way for our modern-day app culture and creating a $77 billion industry.

2009: O2 publicly announced that it had successfully demonstrated a 4G connection using six LTE masts in Slough, UK. The technology, which was supplied by Huawei, achieved a peak downlink rate of 150Mbps.

2016: The Pokemon G