Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Smartphone Phone Launched For Technophobes

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the I-do-one-thing-and-I-do-it-well dept.

Cellphones 437

geek4 writes "A Dutch company has launched what it calls 'the world's simplest phone,' targeting users who are sick of new-generation models. Only capable of making and receiving calls, John's Phone is dubbed the world's simplest mobile phone, specifically designed for anti-smartphones users. It does not provide any hi-tech features. No apps. No Internet. No camera. No text messaging. All you have to do — in fact, all you can do — is call, talk and hang up."

cancel ×

437 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Expensive Price (5, Interesting)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260778)

Is it me or does £60 to £80, or about $95 to $127 dollars seem extremely overpriced for a phone with essentially no features?

Re:Expensive Price (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34260808)

But having no features IS a feature!

Re:Expensive Price (3, Interesting)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260878)

What I mean is, there's almost no expensive components in this phone. Heck, it doesn't even have a screen. All it needs is the simplest or the cheapest microprocessors that is capable of making a call. Yet, it still costs £60 to £80.

Re:Expensive Price (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34260990)

it does have a small LCD screen on the top of the device that shows the caller ID

Re:Expensive Price (3, Funny)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261038)

Whoa! That's all tekno-geek gibberish to me!

Re:Expensive Price (3, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261236)

What I mean is, there's almost no expensive components in this phone. Heck, it doesn't even have a screen. All it needs is the simplest or the cheapest microprocessors that is capable of making a call. Yet, it still costs £60 to £80.

I suspect it's so expensive because it's probably produced in small quantities. On the other hand, older people might just want a simple phone and are prepared to pay a little extra. For most people it's not that much extra, and in the long run this might be a really cheap deal because the buyer probably won't need the newest model in a year or so.

My parents have a Sagem VS-1 [amazon.co.uk] , which is much simpler than the standard phone nowadays, but still much more complex than this phone. I think there's a huge market for simple phones, even ones without a screen.

Re:Expensive Price (4, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261278)

Look at it this way:

Lisa: "By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Hmm; how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!"
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

Re:Expensive Price (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261466)

Exactly my thoughts.

Yet here, a phone with just as few features is readily available on the market for 20 bucks [cnet.com] .

And it looks more intuitive than the phone pictured in TFA.

Re:Expensive Price (3, Funny)

nlawalker (804108) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261238)

Copyright Apple 1976-2010

Re:Expensive Price (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260830)

Very over priced. I had a TracFone that was like this. It only cost me twenty bucks around ten years ago.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261014)

It only cost me twenty bucks around ten years ago

Was that the brand-new unlocked phone price? Or was that the carrier-subsidized price?

Re:Expensive Price (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261154)

It was a TracFone which is a brand of prepaid mobile phone, so it is basically unlocked.

Re:Expensive Price (2, Informative)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261214)

Not really accurate. TracFone works hard to keep their phones locked, or at least did when you bought yours, because they're subsidized by the expected future revenue from purchase of airtime.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261220)

I had a TracFone...

TracFone is one of those no-contract prepaid deals. Mini SIM wasn't very commonplace back then, so it was probably "locked" in that sense, though.

Re:Expensive Price (2, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261084)

I'm pretty sure you can get all the features this phone has in a free phone with a cheap voice plan, and just ignore the other features.

Which makes this phone's release an art project, not part of a business plan.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261362)

Something like the Motorola F3 would be a lot cheaper than this, in the end - and it can text and store phone numbers

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5394928&CatId=5117

$19.99 after rebate.

Re:Expensive Price (2, Interesting)

sgtstein (1219216) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260836)

Have you ever happened to look at what a normal smart phone costs these days when unsubsidized? I do realize that the price is still high but I have a feeling that's more so due to the low sales and manufacture numbers compared to other phones.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261290)

Right, but there are plenty of dumb phones (which still do more than this, say text, play at least midis, and might have an awful camera) for $40 or less, without contract.

Why not get one of those and just not use the features?

Re:Expensive Price (5, Insightful)

AlanMJones (595762) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260844)

The lack of features IS the expensive feature. Because of that the volume is low and the price per unit is higher to make it, I would expect.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261440)

The lack of features IS the expensive feature. Because of that the volume is low and the price per unit is higher to make it, I would expect.

The real and original non-smartphone is the hard wired land line, with a rotary dial. The only expense is to continually pay a lease fee that pays for the installation 50 times over.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260848)

Its the Evian of the cellphones. Expensive, but 100% pure.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261286)

100% pure water is not tasty and is even dangerous for your health. Be happy that Evian contains some ions to make it drinkable!

Re:Expensive Price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261438)

It's got electrolytes!

Re:Expensive Price (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260854)

Well, I hope the is an unsubsidized price. Also, I think there is some design quality feature there they are charging that extra $$ for. It looks pretty cool actually, but, being a smartphone addict, I have no use for it.

Re:Expensive Price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34260858)

You want simple, you gotta pay.

They now have a monopoly on this market.

If only it had a rotary dial....

Re:Expensive Price (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260870)

In this case, I think its killer 'feature' is being devoid of any other features. :)
Also, I'm willing to bet that inside that thing you would find most of the same silicon that you'd find in a typical phone. It just doesn't use the bells and whistles.

Re:Expensive Price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261006)

Most smartphone features are software based, not hardware. In this case you still need all the hardware for handling cellular calls.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261032)

<sarcasm>Well it takes a lot of effort for them to remove all the features! All the code that has to be removed must be a lot of work. Surely they have to be paid for their hard work.</sarcasm>

Re:Expensive Price (0, Flamebait)

Waruwaru (857592) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261036)

This is the Apple model, right? Less configurations, flexibility for more money. You pay someone to remove the complexities.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261066)

The cost is to cover the free upgrade to a rotary dial.

Re:Expensive Price (1)

Vindicator9000 (672761) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261122)

I don't know, that sounds to me like the extreme version of what Apple has been doing for years.

Old people rejoice (0, Flamebait)

Captain Murdock (906610) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260780)

Good for old people I suppose.

Re:Old people rejoice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34260802)

And for children buying their first phone!

Re:Old people rejoice (4, Insightful)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260908)

I imagine old people will enjoy 3 weeks of battery standby time and not being pestered by SMS spam.

Re:Old people rejoice (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261320)

In the UK at least, SMS spam is illegal. Possibly so in the rest of Europe, where this phone is being produced and likely sold.

Re:Old people rejoice (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261346)

I wouldn't call this a phone for technophobes. Not all of us are married to our cell phones. (Although some have gotten divorced and paying spousal support to them.)

Obligatory anti- post (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34260782)

What happens when it comes into contact with a smart phone?

Re:Obligatory anti- post (4, Funny)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260838)

They annihilate each other in an explosion of "hipsterons," the particles responsible for carrying the force of hipsterism.

Re:Obligatory anti- post (1)

Shadmere (1158007) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260882)

They explode into skinny jeans? ::confused::

Re:Obligatory anti- post (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260886)

It will turn into a Zune

Re:Obligatory anti- post (1)

xanthines-R-yummy (635710) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260946)

This is obviously the "killer" feature of the phone!

Re:Obligatory anti- post (1)

jecowa (1152159) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260954)

They would cancel each other out, creating a small explosion.

Re:Obligatory anti- post (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261052)

What happens when it comes into contact with a smart phone?

You'll hear a busy signal.

Re:Obligatory anti- post (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261374)

What happens when it comes into contact with a smart phone?

It never will because the 'Hammer' feature was removed during beta testing.

High Sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34260856)

No contact list either. For all those who say "I just want a phone!" or "does it make calls, hardy-har?" this item will surely fly off the shelves.

Personally, I still count the basic flip phone with only the dial pad and menu button as a phone that just makes calls, because the menu interface is so cumbersome that using any of the extra features are a huge PITA. Even making calls from the contact list hurts. It's easier to just memorize numbers.

Re:High Sales? (5, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261208)

Agreed. What I don't like about the standard flip phone is the obligatory "web" button that can't be disabled. I'd take this product over that.

My wife is a vehement technophobe, and she has a very simple flip-phone that she only marginally knows how to operate. Usually I hear "Hello? I can't hear you. Hello?" to which I am shouting "Hand. The. Phone. To. Your. Daughter." (Daughter has no problem hearing me on the same phone.) Not being there I can't be sure, but I suspect that wife is holding it upside down. I don't suppose that will change even with this phone.

What about receiving calls? (4, Funny)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260868)

If you can only call, talk and hang up, it doesn't appear very useful to me. Listening would be a nice addition, and receiving calls as well...

Re:What about receiving calls? (5, Funny)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261034)

If you can only call, talk and hang up, it doesn't appear very useful to me. Listening would be a nice addition, and receiving calls as well...

It's obviously targeted at women.

Re:What about receiving calls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261316)

And just as obviously you are not.

Re:What about receiving calls? (1)

angiasaa (758006) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261416)

There does not appear to be any means of turning the thing off.
Like ripping the cord out of the wall socket on a conventional telephone.

Now that, is a feature you don't get with the usual land-lines!
What joy! I'm so excited, I think I've just wet myself. :-D

Kirk to Enterprise.. Beam me up Scotty!

Re:What about receiving calls? (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261048)

When you hang up, the teletype in the phone prints a response. Then you call back. Repeat as necessary, or at least until the paper tape runs out.

Re:What about receiving calls? (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261074)

My boss could use this phone.

Re:What about receiving calls? (1)

angiasaa (758006) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261358)

There does not appear to be any obvious means of turning the thing off.. Like pulling the plug out of the wall on a conventional telephone. How exciting! :)

Someone is listening. (1)

BenFenner (981342) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260900)

My prayers have been answered!

Re:Someone is listening. (5, Funny)

viking099 (70446) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261436)

Sony did a good job with a "justaphone" they recently released, the Naite.
I bought one a few months ago for around $120. No contracts, basic phone, no sliding, good screen, some free games that are good, bluetooth, a decent camera, small form factor, and really good battery life. It even accepts standard microSD cards, if you need it.

The free Sony management software is really pretty good, too. It offers phone backups, you can send/receive text messages through your machine while it's plugged in, and it didn't come with a lot of BS carrier lock-in stuff.

Check it out [sonyericsson.com] , it's been perfect for me.

I could see getting one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34260902)

All I want is a phone that can send and receive calls. If it has good battery life, durability, and good sound quality, I could see getting one to replace my Nokia 6010. After 4 years, the battery is going, but otherwise I'm quite happy. Just a couple of days ago I dropped it from a meter and a half onto a tile floor with no harm done. Try that with a newer phone.

I would, however, like to have an (electronic) address book, alarm, and rudimentary calendar. The ability to text would be nice too. So maybe I won't be getting one.

Easy there nerd boy (2, Insightful)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260904)

...speed dial with enough memory to store ten numbers...

Whoa whoa whoa....what now? What's all this fancy schmancy wizardry again? I'm expected to remember some arcane, complicated button combination simply to dial a phone number? It's always the same: you get something working just the way you want it, and some damn hot-shot wiz kid has to come along and make screw it all up.

Re:Easy there nerd boy (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261116)

A better phone would have just a side-crank instead of buttons, so that you can the switchboard operator lady's attention to tell her who you want to talk at.

Re:Easy there nerd boy (3, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261258)

Does anyone actually use speed dial on dumb phones?

Usually it's so complicated to program (and every phone is different) that it's easier just to memorize the damned number.

The biggest change in my life when I switched to a smartphone is that I finally started using the internal address book.

Wait? No phone book? (1, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260910)

I think even the now disappearing "basic phones" have some sort of phone book/directory function. That's not mentioned in the summary. Also, I see it has no display of any kind. That is pretty bad. Even if this were an "anti-smartphone" there should be some sort of confirmation of the numbers pressed. That's just silly.

And as far as aesthetics go, the think looks more like a remote control than a phone. They should style it to look more like an old style hand set and then just make it flat and shorter. The shape and size can still be basically the same but with contours that remind people of a speaker for the ear and a mic for the mouth with two circular areas. And it would help if it were actually a little bigger so that the microphone actually reaches the mouth.

After all, people who would want such a phone would likely appreciate having the mic closer to the mouth.

Re:Wait? No phone book? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261114)

That's not mentioned in the summary.

Therefore it must not exist. Sorry to disappoint you, but the phone does store some numbers. RTFA, /. regardless.

[...]there should be some sort of confirmation of the numbers pressed.

Back in the day before they started sticking screens on everything you knew what number you were pressing by the sound it made. It was practical then and can be again.

I agree though that it should look like an old handset if it's going to act like an old handset, and it's hella overpriced.

Re:Wait? No phone book? (3, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261138)

A jitterbug cell phone is what they should have been shooting for:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2045/jitterbugcellphone.jpg [imageshack.us]

It's a basic phone with oversize numbers on the screen, louder than normal speaker, and big buttons, generally geared towards the senior citizen market.

The only problem is the jitterbug isn't a model you can buy (itself based on some Samsung phone iirc) and use on any service but rather an overpriced prepaid service (and I'm not against prepaid).

Re:Wait? No phone book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261168)

there should be some sort of confirmation of the numbers pressed

Like on your old rotary phone or early (displayless) touchtone phones?

Re:Wait? No phone book? (2, Informative)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261196)

I think even the now disappearing "basic phones" have some sort of phone book/directory function. That's not mentioned in the summary. Also, I see it has no display of any kind. That is pretty bad. Even if this were an "anti-smartphone" there should be some sort of confirmation of the numbers pressed. That's just silly.

You mean like all those phones made between 1900 and 1989 that only clicked or beeped? Even then you had to have your ear to the speaker.

Re:Wait? No phone book? (3, Funny)

Noexit (107629) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261200)

For years and years and years we used phones that didn't have any sort of confirmation of the numbers pressed. Shooot, I've got one on my desk right now that I just have to hope and pray I dial correctly without being able to double check myself.

Re:Wait? No phone book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261460)

Just because you used to do it does not make it a better idea--after all, we (well, not me personally, but we as a human collective) used to program with punch cards in machine code.

Also, using a smart phone form factor for something that is anti-smart phone seems pretty dumb...

Re:Wait? No phone book? (4, Informative)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261248)

I think even the now disappearing "basic phones" have some sort of phone book/directory function. That's not mentioned in the summary. Also, I see it has no display of any kind.

The phone has a display for incoming calls. The address book exists in the form of a pad of paper on the back of the phone you can write on.

I'm serious.

Check it. [johnsphones.com]

Ergonomics? (2, Interesting)

xanthines-R-yummy (635710) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260918)

Is there a reason they designed the phone to look like a remote control or a weird pager? At least the other phones have some added capabilities to make up for the uncomfortable form factor. They might as well have put some more thought into making it comfortable to use in addition to ease-of-use.

Re:Ergonomics? (1)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261046)

That was my thought. Simple is one thing, painful to use is another.

White Pages "John Doe" (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260926)

I also like the idea of being listed in the White Pages as "John Doe"

Oh, wait [slashdot.org] --

No phone book? Too basic (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#34260986)

The chintzy paper phone book it provides doesn't count.

They should have included a standard electronic phone book plus speed dialing, but I have no complaints besides that. If it'd had a proper phonebook, I'd have no trouble recommending it to my in-laws.

Re:No phone book? Too basic (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261202)

Too basic? Then this phone isn't for you.

It's not meeting a small set of needs, it's focused on folks for whom anything digital is tedious and who already have a nice pen-and-paper system of information management.

I know folks who (unlike us geeks) literally get ill at the thought of digitizing paper records like an address book, since every digital implementation sucks in various ways and sync never works perfectly... plenty of data loss horror stories too.

Personally, I'd prefer just having my old brick Nokia or Qualcomm phone from 2000 in terms of capabilities... SIM-based address book, simple call history/redial, minimal to no ringtone selection, and a way to mute and lock.... guess this phone isn't for me either.

Jitterbug (4, Informative)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261018)

Funny, I seem to recall TV ads a few years back for a series of phones — "Jitterbug", as it was called — that effectively did just this. Complete with the "old person afraid of smartphones" use case example. Though with screens (just to see the numbers as you dial them).

Re:Jitterbug (3, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261056)

I bought one for my grandfather, it's a POS.

50% of the time he doesn't receive calls.... they just hang up. And he's in a major city with otherwise great cell coverage.

And it's not something he's doing, I've tested it myself.

Re:Jitterbug (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261112)

Yes. It touted among it's features getting "a familiar dial tone" before you dialed, and having an operator "address you by name" if you dialed "zero". They would advertise it in Yankee magazine, and other things that all the old folks read.

Re:Jitterbug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261312)

Personally I prefer the Jitterbug to this thing, I would even consider getting one myself.

The concept of a (real) computer in my pocket is a tempting one, but the data rates are just too high for me to really consider it.

Isn't speed dial an unnecessary feature? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261022)

I don't get it, they claim to have made a phone that is as simple as possible... and then they do include speed dial. Why did they ruin the perfect phone?!

So this New Generation model... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261026)

...is for people sick of New Generation models.

No, wait...

Never happen but ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261028)

If they pulled all the crap out of it but did some serious engineering to optimize range and durability I could get them 10 sales instantly for our site people. We would probably pay TWICE that price. All they want is to be able to make calls on the edge of cell coverage after the phone has been knocked around in dusty environments and operated at -20C. New crappy phones often don't last a year and range seems to get worse with each new generation. They would fall in love with the things if they were water resistant as well...

bah (0, Redundant)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261044)

I want a portable rotary phone dammit!

Re:bah (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261430)

Here you go [sparkfun.com]

Technophobes? (5, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261072)

Condescending much?

How about for people you don't need extra stuff/crap and just want a fucking phone? I'm a Unix/Windows SA and systems programmer with 4 computers at home (Windows and Linux) and have managed everything from Crays to PC - so, hardly a technophobe - and I still use my Qualcomm QCP-1900 from 1998. It cost me $200 with no-contract and my service is still $15/month (no contract). The thing still provides 6 hours of talk and two-weeks of standby.

Sure, text and web might be nice - sometime - but I don't really need/want to be that "connected" all the time.

Three WEEK standby time!! (2, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261080)

According to TFA, the phone has a THREE WEEK standby time!

Man, I'd almost give up my smartphone just for THAT.

Missed opportunity (1)

dreold (827386) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261118)

It's fugly and looks awful to use (holding to the ear I mean).

Futhermore, compare this to the Motofone (admittedly also awful to use) which sold for about half 3 years ago.

I agree with the concept of doing away with touchscreens and apps and so forth as not everyone likes/uses them (my favorite phone ever was the Nokia 6210), but why make it look and be useable like the awful cheap-ass China audio remotes (lookin at you Bose!).

I firmly believe there is a market for the concept, but my mom would not like this at all, 'nuff said.

anti-smartphone? (2, Funny)

stcdm33 (1942322) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261120)

Dumbphone?

Bah, speed dial. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261126)

If I pay a hundred bucks for simplicity, I don't want no fancy speed-dial. Kidding aside, the perfect no-frills phone already exists, it's called the Motorola F3 and has an e-paper display which is readable under all lighting conditions, big keys and hands-free mode. It runs forever on one battery charge, it's quite thin, it is comparatively rugged because it was designed for the inhospitable environments of third world countries, and it's one of the cheapest phones in existence. If you really just need a phone and can do with very limited SMS capability, then the F3 is about as good as it gets.

basically (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261146)

So basically it's a phone from like 10 years ago?

But... I've already got one of those! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261148)

A Motorola Profile 300e from last century (1999).

Hmm, (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261152)

They might be on to something, if they changed most of the build materials to wood and put a hand crank on the thing they might open a whole new market up in the Amish community! :D

Lots of Features (1)

khr (708262) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261162)

Speed dial, memory, mobility! Those are pretty cool features for a featureless phone. I used phones for years without that sort of fancy stuff...

"Technophobe?" Excuse me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261174)

and fuck you.

I love technology. I'm surrounded by it. I build it for a living.

But I want my cell phone to be little more than a battery-powered radio transceiver. If it wants, it can store a few numbers, and show me if I have a message waiting.

All this extra nonsense is just bullshit. And it's getting damn hard to find "just a phone" lately; people look at you like you're from another planet when you ask.

That doesn't make me a "technophobe."

What? They call it "simple"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261206)

Sorry, too much buttons and switches for me. I'll stick to my iPhone :)

Jitterbug! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261216)

Isn't there already a simplified phone that works better than this one? It even has catchy commercials.

Anti-smartphone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261324)

If you collide a smartphone and an anti-smartphone do you get a big explosion of energy? We need a new power souce that doesnt create CO2...

When can we get one in the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34261370)

I've *never* wanted all the fancy features. POTS-emulation is fine by me.

Was anyone else hoping for ... (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261380)

A rotary dial?

Seriously, I've always wanted to have the equivalent of Maxwell Smart's shoe phone ... with this attached to my shoe I could nearly have been there if only they had made it rotary.

Sorry it's not the most simple (1)

DreamArcher (1690064) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261396)

There are cell phones for kids that only have 3 or 4 buttons which are programmed for speed dial or 911. No ability to arbitrarily dial any number. i.e. They can only dial their parents.

Weak! (2, Funny)

ryan.onsrc (1321531) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261406)

Seriously -- what's up with the Cartman buttons?

Why is keypad missing letters A-Z? (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#34261408)

I wonder why they omitted the A-Z characters?

Those can be useful mnemonics (especially for young/old users).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>