Commodore is back with a de-Googled feature phone for the anti-doomscrolling crowd
(www.androidcentral.com)
WhiteOakBayou
DeGoogle YourselfHell yeah! But $500 is a price I'm torn on.. Not terrible, but not great
Who knew, objects made by paid adults in countries with labor laws costs money. All they need to do is to move production overseas
From another article:
"On the hardware side of things, there seem to be enough modern features to satisfy users who fit the profile of desiring an in-between smart and dumb-phone solution. It supports global LTE cellular connectivity, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth wireless, and even GPS. At the heart of the Callback is a MediaTek Helio G81 SoC, with 4GB/64GB on board. A 32GB microSD card is included to get you started, too."
https://www.tomshardware.com/phones/commodore-announces-linux-based-flip-phone-with-no-social-media-no-browser-the-callback-8020-will-be-available-in-five-retro-colorways-starting-at-usd499-runs-99-percent-of-android-apps
To me, that's pretty low spec for $500 all things considered. Now, there is a price to privacy and the fact they're not monetizing data is a pretty huge incentive. So, probably worth the $500 after all.
from the article:
Privacy is a core selling point
also from the article: mock-up picture showing WhatsApp running on the phone.
I get it that it would be running Android apps through the compatibility layer on SailfishOS, but that means it's not private. Whatsapp will know lots of things about you.
I don't use it, but unfortunately Whatsapp is the de-facto messaging app for a very large percentage of the world population (especially outside of the US) and so the trade-off people are stuck in is use Whatsapp or be cut off from friends/family/anyone else who doesn't care about Zuck peeping their DMs (aka, the vast majority of people).
WhatsApp entered just at the right time in my country. Despite SMS being the defacto way we text people pre iPhone, somehow WhatsApp captured the market here. May be that because the iPhone was expensive for a lot of us and most people instead went with the touch symbian phones and the likes instead and android phones were also still a bit expensive. And back then we don't have carrier financed phone purchasing culture
It "blocks" social media? Whether or not you actually want that, I'm not sure how they could possibly implement it in a way that isn't terrible. Jolla is outside my wheelhouse, but it's Linux isn't it? How are they stopping me from installing anything, let alone these specific things?
"Blocks" is hyperbolic, but it's definitely going to add friction to the process. The screen is small (although apparently a touchscreen), the keyboard is T9.
That actually looks like an interesting phone. I hope it delivers on its promises.
maybe i can put my nokia 7110 to rest
Good idea, it depends on the implementation though - sometimes having a browser on demand is important.
How do you think people managed before smart phones?
Nothing’s that important it can’t wait to get home or to a library, or call someone and get them to check if it is THAT important.
So many places now just assume you have a phone. I've been to restaurants that don't have physical menus by default and just have a QR on the table.
I’ve never been to one that didn’t have a paper menu for the elderly or otherwise less abled. Or they have a tablet for you to use.
Not impossible to get by, but a lot more difficult in the modern world. I used a dumb phone for a little while a few years ago and I just ended up carrying a smartphone w/o a SIM to tether when needed bc of how much infrastructure assumes you have a smartphone nowadays (in the US at least). It's infuriating - not impossible, but a lot more difficult than it used to be.
I’m not saying it’s unmanageable, I’m saying it’s useful to have one.
A web browser is not the problem in most people’s cases, social media is. The point of a dumb smartphone is to keep all the useful tools while banning the harmful ones.
No, if people can receive emails, it defeats the entire purpose. Just don’t install those apps then? Lol. A browser allows access to most social media anyways, so providing one is counter to its purpose.
Strongly disagree. Email is foundational communication just like text messaging.
Social media is NOT foundational communication.
If I’m expecting an immediate response, an email would be the second to last thing I would do. Emails are different from texts entirely. It’s more akin to sending a letter, it’s even in the name, e”mail”.
Cool in principle, but in practice emails are used as instant verification for all kinds of things. Even if you don’t need email immediately, there are lots of other people who do.
Instant verification for what without already being on a phone? If you’re already on the computer, just use the computers browser and log in to your email? Why are you making this more complicated than reality.
There’s literally no reason to instantly need your email, and if you do, than these phones aren’t meant for you, you need to be connected.
Also, what 2fa does email but not text messaging…?
And an email can wait until you get home, if it’s that important, call, but texts suffice.
A browser allows access to social media, so now you just lost the phones sole purpose, good job.
Some feature phones had browsers
I’m aware. Browsers have been in phones long before smartphones.
I hate to break it to you but smart phones have been around since before the Web.
WAP/WML browsers, not web browsers.
Just googled to see if I was misremembering because I definitely browsed the regular web on my Nokia N73. It also came out in 2006, and back in the day it was not called a smartphone.
I would say your statement is factually incorrect.
I’ll say I’m correct on a technicality. 2006 is not “long before smartphones” only a year or so. The N73 is a sort of proto-smartphone, even if the term wasn’t in use yet.
I’m really curious what other metric there is for a smart phone than “accessing the web” and/or “downloading apps”. Thats the barebones definition of smart TVs or any other appliance or equipment, why are phones somehow different?
Why are people trying to define it so specifically? So they can feel better about themselves?
The point where it becomes a general-purpose computing device, I think. Programmability is generally what makes it “smart”, i.e. not having the limitation of predefined “features” which make it a feature phone.
