Sorry, Karl, I find it hard to be excited about this, and I suspect it will end up a flop. This phone is very expensive, and even if they sold it for a lot less, I wouldn’t buy it. I know technology is advancing too fast for many people’s poorly integrated brains. I know it causes people to be more anxious and therefore have more need to distract themselves. But going backward and submitting to more external control — no matter how benevolent allegedly — isn’t the answer.
Psychological development is the answer. Integration, and with it the predictable increased capacity for self-regulation, and a limbic system that is calmer and doesn’t require constant soothing and distractions is really the answer. People who are better integrated can regulate what they do with technology, their ‘screen time’, etc.
Without internal regulation, a phone that doesn’t do social media or browsing is just a crutch. Either way, I doubt that the makers are really that concerned about people’s mental health. They’re just trying to make money.
I would consider alternative technology only on the grounds that it is better for the planet. I suspect this device uses just as many harmful chemicals and processes as everything else we have now. Nothing I see in what the company says publicly suggests sustainability as priority. This device has polycarbonate body, standard lithium battery, swappable plastic back covers as a selling point, which means more non-perishable plastic, not less. In terms of sustainability it’s just more of the same with retro styling. I find it annoying that companies continue to make more crap that no one really needs just to make more money, despite the fact that the planet is saturated with so much rubbish, so much of which is toxic, and despite the fact that human beings in less privileged societies than ours are exploited in the manufacturing of these things. The ‘friendly tech’ pitch is about psychological friendliness, not environmental friendliness, and the interesting thing is that the state of our psychology is actually interconnected with the health of the environment. But this company continues the fictitious ethos that giving people things that ‘make them happy’ can be separate from everything else.
The upcoming UK social media restrictions for under 16s, could invite a need for a phone that’s good enough for a teenager to function with (messaging, maps, camera) but can’t do social media. But at USD500+, this prices out many families. People, kids, already have mobile phones what should be done with those if they are replaced with this new gadget? If they’d built this as a USD150 device aimed explicitly at under 16 social media ban market, it might have had a real use that isn’t just ‘novelty’ for those who are nostalgic for the pre-smart phone old flip phones from 20 years ago.
Sorry, Karl, I find it hard to be excited about this, and I suspect it will end up a flop. This phone is very expensive, and even if they sold it for a lot less, I wouldn’t buy it. I know technology is advancing too fast for many people’s poorly integrated brains. I know it causes people to be more anxious and therefore have more need to distract themselves. But going backward and submitting to more external control — no matter how benevolent allegedly — isn’t the answer.
Psychological development is the answer. Integration, and with it the predictable increased capacity for self-regulation, and a limbic system that is calmer and doesn’t require constant soothing and distractions is really the answer. People who are better integrated can regulate what they do with technology, their ‘screen time’, etc.
Without internal regulation, a phone that doesn’t do social media or browsing is just a crutch. Either way, I doubt that the makers are really that concerned about people’s mental health. They’re just trying to make money.
I would consider alternative technology only on the grounds that it is better for the planet. I suspect this device uses just as many harmful chemicals and processes as everything else we have now. Nothing I see in what the company says publicly suggests sustainability as priority. This device has polycarbonate body, standard lithium battery, swappable plastic back covers as a selling point, which means more non-perishable plastic, not less. In terms of sustainability it’s just more of the same with retro styling. I find it annoying that companies continue to make more crap that no one really needs just to make more money, despite the fact that the planet is saturated with so much rubbish, so much of which is toxic, and despite the fact that human beings in less privileged societies than ours are exploited in the manufacturing of these things. The ‘friendly tech’ pitch is about psychological friendliness, not environmental friendliness, and the interesting thing is that the state of our psychology is actually interconnected with the health of the environment. But this company continues the fictitious ethos that giving people things that ‘make them happy’ can be separate from everything else.
The upcoming UK social media restrictions for under 16s, could invite a need for a phone that’s good enough for a teenager to function with (messaging, maps, camera) but can’t do social media. But at USD500+, this prices out many families. People, kids, already have mobile phones what should be done with those if they are replaced with this new gadget? If they’d built this as a USD150 device aimed explicitly at under 16 social media ban market, it might have had a real use that isn’t just ‘novelty’ for those who are nostalgic for the pre-smart phone old flip phones from 20 years ago.
Fair points.
I gotta say...I do miss my flip phone but at $500, I'll have to keep missing it. I understand your enthusiasm.
You can still buy flip phones and dumb phones, and they are normally pretty cheap! £18-40.