Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#51

Post by hawski »

bungie4 wrote: post #14

When my Nexus 5 dies, I plan on going back to my old Sony-Ericsson feature phone. Just before I retired it I put in a bigger battery. I can fit 3 of them in any pocket I care to choose. It ran 2 weeks on Standby before giving up the ghost. As for functionality. I'm old. Voice/Text/Camera. I've gone for years and years without having a data plan. I typically xfer about 10 texts a month and I might get 1 or two voice c…

I find it a bit peculiar of you to even entertain a thought of buying a $1000 device when, as you said, a feature phone can easily serve you. Because you can easily buy a $200 (or cheaper) smartphone that would serve you nice with addition of standard extras of camera and navigation. Of course if you don't care about those, more power to you.

I personally start to think that once my phone will break, that maybe I'll buy one of those 4G feature-ish phones with KaiOS like the new banana Nokia and a netbook or a smallest Chromebook. But I have small hope in Libre 5 project.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#52

Post by JackCh »

dman wrote: post #8
alchemism wrote: post #6

I've just abandoned using a smartphone in favor of a $20 dumb Alcatel phone that can only do three things: calls, alarms, and an FM radio. It doesn't even vibrate. I offloaded every other functional use into my tablet, in this case an iPad Pro. The phone battery lasts for days on standby; I can drain my tablet battery without concern. I can leave the tablet at home if I want to stay light or if I want to stay focused…

What do you do for navigation? (Thats literally the only feature keeping me with a smart phone right now).

There used to be pretty cheap stand-alone GPS navigation devices (probably still are, though I haven't bothered to look.) And many cars have built in GPS navigation these days anyway.

You can also get a road atlas for the regions you'll find yourself in. That's how I learned to navigate. It works just fine the vast majority of the time and the remaining time you just pull into a gas station and ask. It's not really a big deal.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#53

Post by ken »

This is a nearly perfect PR hit. Controversial question in the title, about a product category nearly everyone uses, with the product name in the first sentence, for an indie-funded startup, challenging Apple and Google and social media, published in the NYTimes in the middle of the week.

Short of an endorsement from Barack Obama, I don't know how this could have been any better for them. Well done.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#54

Post by ocdtrekkie »

ender341341 wrote: post #33
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #21

I have strongly considered this. I'm on a Windows Mobile device right now, and as long as security updates keep coming monthly, I'll stay here, but eventually I am going to need a new solution. Android is an unacceptable security risk, and I am not super fond of Apple or their limits. I was considering switching wholly to an LTE-enabled Windows tablet (I have a Surface, but I've been eyeing a Latitude) and then just…

Can I ask what tablet you'd be looking at? Perhaps one of the windows laptop/tablets hybrids? Besides those I'm not sure what other tablets besides Android/iOS you'd migrate to.

I've been eyeing the Latitude 7285, though Dell opted not to refresh it's form factor in the latest product line refresh, so I'm a little worried about if they'll keep the design.

It's a detachable 2-in-1 like the Surface Book, though it's magnetic instead of the Book's slightly overengineered mechanized connector. It's also a lot cheaper than the Book for what you get, far easier to disassemble and service, and has built-in LTE available.

I currently have a Surface Pro 4, and while I'm relatively fond of it in general, the lack of LTE on this model irritates me (newer ones now can get it), and the biggest issue is that the soft keyboard/kickstand design isn't sufficiently lap-usable.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#55

Post by gjs278 »

kleiba wrote: post #28
ctrl-j wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get lost and have to stop/call for directions? Abandoning modern technology doesn't seem like the better alternative in this case.

First of all, not having a GPS does not automatically imply getting lost. People used to be able to navigate just fine most of the time before that technology was available. And then, what's wrong with asking someone for directions? I've been asked many times in the olden days and never once was it an unpleasant experience.

>And then, what's wrong with asking someone for directions?

completely wasting their time. use your phone.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#56

Post by gjs278 »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #26
ctrl-j wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get lost and have to stop/call for directions? Abandoning modern technology doesn't seem like the better alternative in this case.

Spend a few minutes looking at a map before the trip?

road closed. detours. insane levels of traffic you didn't anticipate. have fun.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#57

Post by WhompingWindows »

megaman22 wrote: post #32

Why do people hold up the NY Times as such a great newspaper? There's been like 8 stories from them on here today, and it's the same repeated drivel they trot out every two or three weeks, on the same topics, and the same low-energy arguments. My flag button is wearing out.

Do you care to elaborate on how specifically they are not great, how they make drivel? Yours is a low-energy argument in itself, no specifics, just negativity.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#58

Post by icebraining »

dman wrote: post #8
alchemism wrote: post #6

I've just abandoned using a smartphone in favor of a $20 dumb Alcatel phone that can only do three things: calls, alarms, and an FM radio. It doesn't even vibrate. I offloaded every other functional use into my tablet, in this case an iPad Pro. The phone battery lasts for days on standby; I can drain my tablet battery without concern. I can leave the tablet at home if I want to stay light or if I want to stay focused…

What do you do for navigation? (Thats literally the only feature keeping me with a smart phone right now).

GPS doesn't need data, just use an offline maps app on the tablet. HERE is okay, Google Maps nowadays also lets you download areas to use offline, and there are multiple apps that can use OpenStreetMap data.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#59

Post by jfrankamp »

phil248 wrote: post #23

The article uses the word "phone" about 40 times. Based on my own usage patterns, I don't even have a phone. I have a portable computer. I happen to use it to make phone calls a few times every week. I use my desktop to make video calls a few times a month, but I don't call that a phone. We all know a smartphone is a computer, and I'm not trying to be pedantic about the words we use, but I think our insistence that t…

Language changes. Phone now means (primarily) thing-in-pocket, but importantly its _shorter_ than thing-in-pocket so phone it is. Don't think so? I misplaced my ____. Sally is playing games on her ____. Joe is watching netflix on his ____.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#60

Post by jadedhacker »

megaman22 wrote: post #32

Why do people hold up the NY Times as such a great newspaper? There's been like 8 stories from them on here today, and it's the same repeated drivel they trot out every two or three weeks, on the same topics, and the same low-energy arguments. My flag button is wearing out.

The NYT's audience model is to make white collar slightly liberal managerial class and workers that aspire to the managerial class feel smart. These are the people that decide what a "glowing reputation" is, hence NYT gets one.

They then take this reputation they built up and pivot it into foreign policy propaganda, often based on official lies.

Of course, NYT also employs actual and good reporters. However, to a certain degree, they are swimming against the stream and their prestige enhances the prestige of the institution. Just look at how James Risen's stories on Stellar Wind were killed by calls from the White House.

Post reply on HN