I hate cordless phones. So when Gizmodo reader ournextcontestant asked why Obama was using a corded phone instead of a cordless phone in this photo, I felt it was our duty to explain.
First off, yeah, we're aware that the main point of being cordless is that you can take the phone with you around the house. That's one point in its "positive" column. Here are the negatives, in no particular order.
• Security. The president needs to make sure some bozo out on the lawn can't eavesdrop on his phone call with a baby monitor.
• Interference. "Hold on Putin, the kids are microwaving some popcorn."
• Sound quality. Being able to actually hear inflections in people's voices is kinda important when dealing with international crises.
• You have to charge it. Aides can probably do it for him, but it's a pain.
• It's easy to lose
• It requires power. If the White House ever completely loses power (including whatever generators they might have), he wouldn't be able to make any calls from his desk.
• Corded phones have more features. The most gadgety reason is that that current phone, which is probably by Cisco or Avaya or someone similar, and has tons and tons of features. There's probably even an Optimus Prime voice changer on that thing. No way will a cordless phone be able to match that.
To be honest, I had to check my calendar when writing this post, since this whole topic of cordless vs. corded feels like I'm back in 1993. You kids and your beepers! And your V-Chips! And your closed captionings! [NYT]