> The future will be audio-first. We’ll trade our tiny screens for always-in Airpods [...]
No.
It comes with a lot of drawbacks:
- Speed. A lot of people can read a lot faster than your usual conversation speed (and in their own pace), while audio is at a rather constant speed, which you might not even be able to control. Additionally, you can easily re-read something when you missed it or did not understand it - doing so with audio is not that easy.
- Privacy. When you're using a voice assistant, you're broadcasting your inputs to your surroundings and maybe even the output. Yes, people can already look on your screen, but the field is limited and the behaviour is discouraged. You're basically becoming that annoying person on the phone overheard by everyone, all the time.
- Scalability. Somewhat related, but a full bus with people on their phone is not a problem (in non-pandemic circumstances). Now, imagine 40 people talking to their phone in that bus.
- Clarity: Human-to-human understanding is quite imperfect already, especially in noisy environments or with distance. Text does not have any problems with this [0].
- Information density. "A picture can say more than a thousand words". Try reading a scientific paper with graphics via audio only, it'll be fun.
That's not to say that voice is useless. When you're driving or your hands are full while you're in your home, it is ideal. It also opens up accessibility to people which might not handle screens that well (for example very old persons).
But given these limitations, I can not imagine voice replacing screens as the main input method any time soon, or at all. For the edge cases above, sure. But in the general case? No.
[0] There are still understanding problems with text, but voice has those, too.