When introducing the original iPhone in 2007, Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs quipped that "nobody wants a stylus" with a smartphone, but Apple has played the semantics game in insisting that the Apple Pencil is a drawing tool. It's also been over a decade since Jobs made that comment--things change.
Pardon an ESL guy here, but how on Earth does this sort as a semantics game?
As I understand it, a semantics game is when people are debating something that comes down to making irrelevant, nonexistent or meaningless distinctions between the senses of words, or playing with which word is used to imbue the conversation with the more/less favourable connotation of the speaker's preferred word as compared to that of the word preferred by the other party, or other such feckless flounderings and prevarications.
There's a very clear and meaningful distinction between an input device designed to function as the preferred or sole means of operating a touchscreen device, with or without the additional ability to function as a better way to draw, and an input device designed to function as a digital drawing tool, with or without the additional ability to function as a means of operating the device.
The Apple Pencil is neither the sole means of operating any iDevice, nor (in my experience) a preferred means of doing so, although it certainly can (which is useful, since it avoids the need to adjust your grip to operate the screen with your fingers, and avoids smudging the screen while you're working on a drawing). If it were designed to be the preferred means of operating some iDevice, it would have a very different design, as the ergonomics are terrible for that use, but excellent for drawing (despite the lack of an eraser in the back or a button on the side).
Moreover, it is clear that Steve Jobs, for all his various flaws, understood (and- by context- was, with regard to the iPhone, referring to) the simple fact that a stylus is one more thing that can go wrong, and inferior to multitouch as a means of operating the device. When you are making a phone, you are making a device the users will sometimes use for emergency phone calls, and the last thing you want is for them to think they're carrying a reliable phone, only to realise they're missing a critical component (hands up anyone here who has never misplaced a stylus or pencil or the like, and also never forgotten to bring/pack it when leaving work or home) at the time when that reliability is required. If you design your smartphone to require a stylus, you're pretty much saying the user will need to carry a phone they can rely on, in addition to the one they bought from you. And if that were the intention, they would've just released a new iPod, "now with GSM Data as an option!", rather than creating the iPhone.
No current iDevice requires a stylus, in the meaningfully distinct sense of requiring one to function.
That Steve Jobs failed to foresee that a stylus might be a valuable addition to the functionality of the phone, and the earlier tablets, is a shortcoming on his part, but entirely irrelevant in regard to the assertion that a stylus is a poor choice for a baseline input modality in a device that needs to be reliable. A stylus gets lost, misplaced, forgotten, or just plain worn out, and has different requirements for working well than does the finger operated touchscreen design (which, as we know, is now so ubiquitous that most of us can't remember the days when a touchscreen was one of those aggravating features of wall mounted terminals, the ones you operated by punching a face-sized "button" repeatedly in the hopes it would work, until you found yourself imagining the designer in between you and the UI to motivate yourself to keep trying).
Who wants a stylus?
The kind of stylus and associated paradigm it referred to when Jobs made the statement?
Nobody in their right mind, is who.
But some of us want a stylus of the modern kind, in the modern paradigm that the iPhone created, where it can serve as an accessibility aid for some, a way to keep the screen clean for others, and a way to create digital art for people like me who got one for that reason and that reason only. The Apple Pencil being one of the best options in that regard, and a welcome addition to the iPhone (just wish I'd held off on replacing my dying phone one more generation; oh, well).
That kind of stylus didn't exist when Jobs made his statement. At least, not in any meaningful sense. You did have various hacks that sort of worked to some extent, the best of them by sensing the peaking of the light intensity from the phosphors of a CRT when the beam scanned past, the timing giving the location of the tip at that point, offering a whopping 25-30 samples per second with an accuracy of millimeters. Apple Pencil is capable of sampling the tip position with pixel perfect accuracy 240 times per second, and the input can be reflected in less time than the lag sensitivity of our hand-eye coordination feedback loop's predictor function with good software. That's a whole different ballgame.
Someone arguing that the distinction between a jumpsuit/tracksuit and a business suit is "just a semantic game" because "they're both suits" in response to the assertion they're not in compliance with the dress code at some venue will elicit a chuckle and an eyeroll from the bouncer, at best.
The similar assertion in the article that the stylus comment is, essentially, retracted or backtracked on but for "semantic games", is no more worthy of consideration, nor less worthy of a chuckle and an eyeroll, than the suit comment in the analogy, and the editor should consider applying a dress code edit. Or stick some tongue in cheek emoji in there to pass it off as a joke.
And I should probably find something better to do than write several paragraphs about it, so... /bounces.