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

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#121

Post by poulsbohemian »

ctrl-j wrote: post #19
rubidium wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but can answer. What everyone used to do.

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

This reminds me of some of my favorite direction stories from life. I was in Ohio. I had just intersected the Dublin-Granville road. I stopped at a gas station to ask "I know Dublin is at one end, and Granville the other, but I'm not sure which direction I need to go to reach Dublin, left or right?" I assumed a station attendant, at a shop with an address on the Dublin-Granville road, would be able to answer this. Instead he replied "Oh I don't know, I'm not from around here."

In another instance, I was working with someone in Seattle who had lived there about a decade, had a PhD (I mention only to point out they had some intelligence), and I mentioned I had to go to Tukwilla that night - maybe ten miles at most south of the Seattle city limits. She had no idea where Tukwilla was, had never been there.

So point being, whether it was pre-device based digital maps or today, most people have no idea where they are.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#122

Post by apricot »

always_good wrote: post #88
apricot wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You object to calling them "phones" because they're not often used as phones, yet you want to call them "computers". What exactly do you compute with them? We should all be honest and call them "trackers" or "distractors".

Wow, that's very stoned-college-freshman level sociotechnological commentary. You must think very highly of yourself for not being one of those stupid Sheeple who don't have anything productive to do with a phone than be tracked and play Farmville.

I'm sorry my comment gave you such a bad impression of myself, and I can assure you that I am neither a stoned college freshman nor a vainglorious hipster. As an educator, I have seen the impact of cell phones on sustained concentration abilities, and it worries me.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#123

Post by wffurr »

sandov wrote: post #76
wffurr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't actually change anything about the smartphone being a distraction machine. All the same apps, social networks, constant notifications, etc are still there. The fundamentals have nothing to do with "Google's proprietary crap" and everything to do with being an internet enabled distraction machine, which is true for all modern smartphone OSes.

I could say that open source apps — like the ones in f-droid — don't present the same amount of dark patterns that closed source proprietary apps do. But I agree, getting rid of google's proprietary apps doesn't necessarily mean get rid of this attention/dopamine seeking world we find ourselves in. However, I think a great part of how uncomfortable it feels to know that there's a smart phone in your pocket is knowing…

A great part of how uncomfortable it is for some people, perhaps, but not the author of the original piece.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#124

Post by sandov »

wffurr wrote: post #123
sandov wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could say that open source apps — like the ones in f-droid — don't present the same amount of dark patterns that closed source proprietary apps do. But I agree, getting rid of google's proprietary apps doesn't necessarily mean get rid of this attention/dopamine seeking world we find ourselves in. However, I think a great part of how uncomfortable it feels to know that there's a smart phone in your pocket is knowing…

A great part of how uncomfortable it is for some people, perhaps, but not the author of the original piece.

Yeah. I went off on a tangent.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#125

Post by nradov »

rubidium wrote: post #9
dman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not OP, but can answer. What everyone used to do.

What we used to do completely sucked. I did field repair work back in the days before smartphones and cheap GPS navigation. Even with a good map and directions written down before leaving I would frequently miss turns due to poor street signs. Or have to drive super slow to read house numbers and business names. I'm shocked anyone would even consider going back to what we used to do.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#126

Post by pishpash »

Analemma_ wrote: post #38
pishpash wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually most of the pressure has been social, i.e. peer pressure. "Why aren't you using this app? How can I reach you?" etc. Just have to say no and stick to your own plan.

It's not that simple though. Those people aren't pressuring you into doing drugs, they just want to be in touch – hardly a crime. Just saying "no" without providing some kind of credible alternative can make you a hermit, and not everyone is OK with that.

If you don't want to be bothered you don't want to be bothered. Also it's not like you're off the grid. You have more structured (and meaningful) communication on non-immediate devices, when you want it. People who care will reach you no matter.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#127

Post by perl4ever »

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?

You can even just go by street signs and general directions sometimes. I don't know if I have any paper maps any more. Plus, you know, reading maps while driving is probably as dangerous as texting.

The other day, I left home intending to go to a hospital near where I live. As I usually do, I plugged my phone into my car and tried to tell it to navigate there. But for some reason it hung while trying to contact Google to locate the address.

So I rebooted my phone, and rebooted my car, to no avail. Eventually I gave up, and based on the general knowledge that the hospital was to the south east, took one of the main roads through the city east, until I saw the first of several blue "H" signs directing me to the hospital.

My car has an electronic compass as well, if I didn't know which way was east/south.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#128

Post by perl4ever »

reaperducer wrote: post #107
icebraining wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You must live a very boring life if you never go anywhere other than where you plan to at the beginning of the day.

That's how things were before ubiquitous GPS and electronic maps. Lawn, off, etc.

Re: Is a Dumber Phone a Better Phone?

#129

Post by perl4ever »

FRex wrote: post #115

The Light Phone 2 features are very poor[0]. Any dumb mobile phone from mid 2000s has those that are guaranteed in [1], they also don't run a modified Android but a bespoke locked down OS, cost less (Light Phone 2 is available for $300 as preorder on IndieGoGo and MSRP seems to be $400), have a physical keyboard, some games, colorful display, email, etc. There are even some not so bad smart phones that cost less than…

I had a decent Motorola smart phone that was well under $100, and did everything I could want. I replaced it with a far more expensive Pixel XL, mainly because of the nice camera, display, and CPU. But all the basic functionality was on the cheap phone.
Post reply on HN