Confusion about convenience, luxury and impulse control
Whenever I think about convenience I think about the washing machine. This point has been made by many other people, but it's not incorrect despite being moot: the washing machine is an incredible convenience. (and for the sake of the whole conversation, just assume I'm talking about a washer & dryer, even though drying was never as inconvenient as washing.) Washing a household's clothing might have taken all day or even multiple days; hours of scrubbing in a stream or a tub are now replaced by the quite minor inconvenience of placing your clothing into a washing machine and then switching them at the end of the cycle. While the machine is running automatically, you're free to do other things.
In my mind, when I think about this sort of miraculous convenience, I always want to compare it to other modern inventions which people seem to believe to be convenient, but in fact offer nothing like the convenience of the washing machine. I want to discuss a few examples below. But I also want to lay out some criteria:
Criteria
Convenience
A convenience saves you real time and either significantly speeds up a lengthy task, or frees you to do other work. We might also call something convenient if it speeds up a very small task, but that task needs to be performed many, many times. ie, on an individual level the speed improvement is minimal, but if that task is repeated hundreds or thousands of times per day then this minimal improvement adds up quickly.
Luxury
A luxury is something which might feel better, or seem more premium, but does not actually save someone time or effort. Someone without the luxury in question might be able to perform all the same functionality, but perhaps would feel less comfortable. Alternately, they might just appear poorer. I should also note that there's nothing wrong with enjoying luxury or wanting to be comfortable. (to an extent) It's just the case that a luxury is not a convenience.
Attacks on impulse control
I'm really not sure what to call this category, and I'm sure there's a better name out there. From my view, quite a bit of purported convenience is merely an effort to reduce the amount of impulse control needed to perform a task. This step is often taken either to dupe a consumer into purchasing a convenience that is not actually a convenience. Or more often, it's used when a service is "free" and the cost to the consumer is advertising or data collection. (ie, optimizing for engagement on a social media site) And so, what appears to be "convenient" is really just something which reduces the barriers to entry, with the usual goal being increasing the desired behavior. (eg: watching more videos, and therefore watching more advertisements, on Youtube)
Examples of false convenience
Power windows in cars
This one is interesting and most relevant when we thinking about the driver's side window. An old fashioned crank window is actually just as fast as an automatic window, so a power window does not save you time. Rolling down a window is not difficult, so it's not as if a power window saves you effort. Yes, you need to take your hand off the wheel to roll down the window, however there are many many times you need to take a hand off the wheel and these other instances don't constitute a safety concern. Until recently, people needed to take a hand off the wheel every time they needed to change gears. So I would argue that unless the driver is particularly incompetent, this is not even a safety consideration. (Further, putting your window down is never a necessity, so it's always the case that you can wait until there is a less-distracted time to roll your window down.)
The only possible counter-argument here would be the other three windows in car. In most vehicles, it is genuinely not safe or possible to roll them down from the driver's seat, and power windows do provide a functionality here that old fashioned crank windows do not. (That said, I previously owned a mid-2010s Ford Fiesta, and it was such a small vehicle that you could actually reach all 4 window cranks without leaving the driver's seat, and I would often roll down all 4 windows on nice days!) However, rolling down your other windows is not a necessity for anything; it's just a luxury. It's a pleasant experience but it doesn't actually save you time or effort. Now consider that power windows add cost, weight, and maintenance cost to a car. These costs are not great, but given that power windows don't actually add any real convenience, they should be seen as a negative. (at least from the standpoint of convenience alone)
Power rear lift-gates in cars
This one legitimately drives me nuts. Much like the power windows, no time is saved. (in fact, a power lift-gate takes longer to close than shutting it manually.) You actually lose functionality, as you can no longer close it manually with your hand. (doing so is bad for the motor in the lift-gate!) A manual lift-gate can be closed with one hand, so it's not as if the motor allows you to close the gate when your hands are full of groceries. (even if it did, you'd be closing it once you'd put the groceries in the trunk!) On the trip to the car, you'd have a shopping cart, so there is no benefit there. You might say "what if I'm holding my kids?" Again, this is not a real convenience, it's just matter of order of operations. You manage the kids or groceries or whatever first, then manage the lift-gate. All that's saved is you needing to think about the order of operations for the tasks you're performing; you don't actually save time, and therefore this is not a convenience. (this might fall somewhat into the "attack on impulse control" category since what you really need to do here is exercise some forethought rather than working harder)
Unlike the power windows, I wouldn't even call the lift-gate a luxury. You can no longer manually close your own lift-gate. I would argue that reaching up to close your lift-gate is actually easier than fishing your keys out of your pocket, and just as easy as pushing a button on the lift-gate. So, simple and easy functionality has actually been taken from from you. Maintenance is now far worse: Almost anyone could replace a piston on an old-fashioned lift-gate, but replacing the internal motor is much more difficult and expensive. It's a heavy net-negative with no benefit whatsoever. The only edge case I can think of is that it would be good for the disabled or otherwise infirm. However, for the average person a power lift-gate doesn't even rise to the threshold of luxury. It's masquerading as a luxury, but offers no benefit.
Bed frames and box springs
This is likely to be my least popular example. Why do we bother with bed frames or box springs? Why don't we just put our mattresses directly on the ground? What benefit does a bed frame and box spring actually confer? I think there are a few possible arguments.
Most importantly, a mattress on the ground is a signal of poverty or incompetence. I think there is a fear that you'll look like a meth addict. A bed frame is an uninvestigated default; it's just what do you. No one needs to justify owning a bed frame, but refusing to own one would require justification in most people's eyes.
I also think there are a couple of other cases; the elderly or disabled might genuinely not be able to get up to a standing position if their mattress is on the ground. Again, disabled individuals require special consideration or accommodation. But for anyone else, being able to pick yourself off the ground is one of the lowest bars you can clear for general fitness. If you consider yourself to be able-bodied, it should be a very sobering wake-up call if you find yourself struggling to get up from a mattress on the ground.
Lastly, I think there could be edge cases if you live in a high-humidity environment; a mattress on the ground could potentially breed mold. Now this has never happened to me, but I think it'd be crazy to assume it's impossible. Fear of mice and insects are really not relevant: they can climb your bed frame just fine if they want to. (There's no bed frame out there which prevented bed bugs. They live in the frame as well as the mattress!)
So what are the benefits to a mattress on the ground? Well interestingly aside from mere cost, bed frames tend to have varying degrees of sag. Usually they sag in the middle, but additionally the slats are often far enough apart such that a mattress will sink in and create pressure points. General solution to this is a box spring, but this creates it own problems: box springs themselves are an additional cost which exist solely to solve problems first created by a bed frame. Additionally, box springs themselves also tend not to offer perfect support, and sag in the middle. By contrast a mattress on the ground is perfectly supported at all points by the solidity of your floor. Assuming your mattress is nice enough, the mattress actually provides better support on the ground than it does on a bed frame and box spring.
And so, a bed frame and box spring is clearly just a luxury.
Counter-examples
The electric toothbrush
So, you'd be forgiven for thinking that I would lump the electric toothbrush in with power windows and power doors. They don't save you time, (in fact, most of them have timers, so someone will probably spend more time brushing with an electric toothbrush just by virtue of being held to a standard) and brushing your teeth is not difficult, and they're more expensive than an old fashioned manual toothbrush.
But for most people, an electric toothbrush will do a better job than a manual toothbrush. This is not really a convenience or a luxury, but an improvement at a cost. Which for some will be worth it.
Smartphones
Smartphones are not really a true counter-example, but I think they're a very messy example. So there are plenty of cases where smartphones fit into all three categories I've laid out above, but plenty of cases where they break that mold and offer actual convenience. They're the best and the worst all packaged together. They deserve their own essay and don't neatly fit this topic.