You can Google it yourself. There are tons of studies showing a decline in technology literacy among younger generations (Z and alpha). Millennials were the peak.
This shows that younger kids aren’t using traditional PCs, at least not to the same degree. They just use phones and tablets. At best they may play games on their PC by installing via Steam. Very few of them are becoming proper technologists (able to install and use any software, script the computer, or write their own software).
No shit. That's completely different from what you claimed, though, which was specifically that people were giving up PCs to become smartphone users because they appreciated the lack of choice that smartphones gave them.
The phenomenon you're talking about now is so completely in another universe that it's insane you would conflate the two. I actually can't finish typing this response properly because it's hurting my head every second I continue to think about your argument. To sum it up really shortly: smartphones universal, required to even participate in society, people now given smartphones from early age, multi-functional as phones, cameras, etc, they fit in your pocket, more than sufficient for normie use cases and in fact more suitable for many use cases that don't entail sitting at a desk at home, computers are specialised tools for specialised functionality that many people have no need for. There are 100000000 reasons why smartphone usage displaces PC usage that aren't because they explicitly abandoned PCs for the crime of allowing them to choose what software to install, which was your claim. Not even having mentioned that globally, 75% of smartphone usage is Android which doesn't lock its users in the cage (for the time being).
Do you think smartphones would be ubiquitous today if they had the malware situation that plagued Windows XP?
I think you overstate how bad said situation was, and to the extent it was a problem I doubt it had any meaningful impact on PC usage rates, and I have not the slightest doubt that such a situation would have had minimal bearing on smartphone adoption. People are drawn to things that offer utility to them, regardless of any downsides. That's why people will happily hand over the entire details of their private life to any internet service that asks it of them, and why the market does not punish any company that has security breaches and loses hundreds of millions of people's personal information. Security and privacy are at the very bottom of a normie's list of concerns in practice, even if they might say they care in surveys. If something is useful to them, they will use it regardless of security and privacy flaws.
Edit: It's also telling that you need to go back to XP to make your case. It's 2025. Security practices have improved a ton to give people more protection from themselves without outright taking away their freedom to make choices.
Also, let's again re-iterate that Android usage outnumbers iOS by three-to-one, so it is clear in practice that people are in fact willing to adopt a phone that allows them to make mistakes (if they try very hard to).
You think smartphones give people fewer choices?
Yes.
Now you have a multibillion-dollar supranational corporation playing judge jury and executioner for any of your choices.
E.g. App Store prohibits adult content (which is not illegal). Prohibits emulators (which are not illegal) [1]. Prohibits or hinders the use of better alternatives to pre-installed apps (Photos, Camera, Maps, Siri) [1]. Removes any and all apps if there's a hint of displeasure from wannabe dictators.
Basically, you don't have your range of choices. You have Apple's range of choices.
[1] Some of these choices are now better on iOS precisely due to Apple losing the fight against governments. They finally allowed emulators after they lost a battle against alternative app stores. They finally gave options to change some default apps (but not all, and not in all countries, see e.g. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-ma...)