141–150 of 265 posts
It's getting more and more normal that sites won't link out of their own "property".
> There's also a free plan where Tin Can users can call only other Tin Can users. So you have to pay a monthly subscription for this, in addition to $75 for each phone, if you want to talk with anyone outside of their walled garden?
Makes sense to me. Ideally, people outside of my friends and family would not be able to call me on my regular phone either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and dumbphones exist (again). You can buy a newer version of the Nokia 3210 that charges with USB-C and works on modern cell networks.
The main feature I want for my kids is an explicit allow list to keep them from gettin spam or talking to randoms. The manual I found doesn't seem to have this feature. Also the advertising page has "Cloud Apps for news, weather, and more" :( https://www.hmd.com/en_int/nokia-3210?sku=1GF025CPD4L02
Now the problem is that they're not "dumb" enough as they have a web browser, youtube etc, but that can be considered fine because the experience for those is so bad that it's unlikely to get addicting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, you got it for yourself, so you chose to use a jukebox (or in other words : restrict your listening to specific titles on physical media) instead to impose it to other, which make a big difference in what people see as a restrictions(instead of a choice, which is self inflicted). Chosing a Tin Can is obviously to restrict your kid usage of communication, it's the nature of the purchase of the device.
Choosing a Tin Can for a child that doesn't have a phone isn't restricting them, it's empowering them with a new form of communication to chat to their friends. Getting my 10 year old a bicycle instead of a car isn't a restriction.
Which it is. I don't understand the need to wink-wink-nudge-nudge pretend it's anything else by the others in this thread. Just own it, restrictions aren't bad by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not restricted. It's less capable. Entirely different thing. And they'll view it as a completely different device for different purpose (voice calls vs. doom scrolling).
Specifically designed to be less capable is the same as being restricted. It's purpose is explicitly to restrict the user communication to some predefined setting by a third party (the parent and company behind it) and the user is well aware of that, as this e-waste cost as much as a cheap or second hand smartphone.
This is the ultimate "parents think it's great, kids will think it's lame" product. I mean, I like it. And just the name conjures images of GenXers yelling at clouds on TikTok about how they used to use tin cans or Solo cups connected with string to talk to their friends, so it's clear who they're targeting with the marketing. But if I were 11-13yo and I got this when all my friends got an iPhone? I'd be furious. But…
Yeah, I also pause when I read articles like this. The parent in this story is trying to go "full 90s", like that was when kids were raised the best... which just happens to be the time when they were kids. Except, when I was a kid in the 90s, the parents at that time thought the 90s things were horrible and longed for the best time to raise kids... which of course was when they were children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dug out an old Motofone (the $40 eink candybar) for this reason, only to discover that it’s 2G, which has been decommissioned. Too bad, would’ve been fun to watch the kid learn T9.
Modern dumbphones exist: https://www.hmd.com/en_int/nokia-3210