5 ms·

Devices like this intrigue me but the price always seems way too high. I wonder if anyone will actually come up with a minimalist phone that has a minimalist pr

Devices like this intrigue me but the price always seems way too high. I wonder if anyone will actually come up with a minimalist phone that has a minimalist price to match.

nine_k 9y ago
It will involve minimalist features, like minimalist horsepower and screen size. Quite minimal phone-only phones do exist, like Punkt MP 101, or more conventional phones, especially kids-oriented.
- makmanalp 9y ago
  I had a Moto F3 for a while and the battery lasted forever but the lack of features was sort of brutal: the screen was e-ink but only an 8-segment display one so it was impossible to see things like unicode characters and even distinguish between capital and regular case sometimes. This seems a nice balance between that and a smartphone. Edit: I got my Moto F3 for 20 bucks, the Punkt is 229. Nope.
onli 9y ago
For an unconventional phone (=limited target group, risky) + the insurance + the work going into the app integration the price does not seem to be high at all, to me.
- michaelmior 9y ago
  It's true that in this case the insurance is a nice benefit. But as a consumer, I don't really care about the fact that the venture is risky. I'm getting a phone with fewer features, but not really paying less.
adhambadr 9y ago
honestly its the lowest thats technically possible to sell. Good components just cost that much. After vat our margin is around 35 (pre-retail) which is lower than most vendors, meaning if we sell to retail we wont make a cent. it just costs that much to get tested, working components with decent manufacturing. If you find good specs cheaper trust me they used B-grade components that will break down sooner or later.
- michaelmior 9y ago
  I've had good smart phones (e.g. Moto G) in the recent past for less than half that price. Maybe I'm just not in the target market.
- existencebox 9y ago
  I both disagree with your assertion, and find it sad that michaelmior is being downvoted. My wife uses the moto G Play. <150USD for a perfectly functional phone, and frankly I'd even call it "far from minimal," (it has features that many flagships unfortunately don't support any more, e.g. sd cards, removable batteries, and headphone jacks) and for years have looked for an even more commodity platform myself since I have no need for apps or beefy hardware. (GPS, text, html only browser, email, with barely enough horsepower to run the above + a beefy battery would be the pipedream, and sounds _not too far_ from the brick phones I used ~20 years back) As I told a coworker when I saw this post: Either our expectations of "minimal" or the english language has gotten entirely out of wack, because 350 pounds for a smartphone is so far from minimal as to be laughable. Maybe a "minimal flagship" (and this is where I'm inclined to think the gap between your view on this and mine is, where you said 'if you find good specs cheaper'. Perhaps my view on "good" is a much lower bar, but I'm perfectly happy with my 60$, 5 year old Lumia, and find it to be _far more minimal_, while directly challenging your "break down sooner or later" assertion; I've had droid flagships that didn't last as long.)
  - adhambadr 9y ago
    I guess you're right we have complete perception of minimal. I wrote somewhere else our aim was to be exactly between Flagship smartphones and complete detox options like litephone or an old refurbished nokia, I think you're more looking for those options.
    - existencebox 9y ago
      You're probably right re: how we're looking at minimalism, and if that range was your aim, your price point seems much more fair. The mental dissonance came for me simply from my perception of the word "minimal;" I have a wonderful moment of "Oh man someone's finally making the phone I wish I could buy" whenever I see a thread with this or similar verbiage, then the sad realization that I'm apparently too far to the 'throw out everything but your matress' side of minimal. I was simply surprised to have not seen other feedback along this vein, and moreso when the other commenter was going grey for advocating what I thought were some good examples of models in that range. Anyway, I'd want to cap this with a friendly "good luck"; Don't take my jaded disappointment as anything more than the whinging of someone tilting at the windmills of eternally larger and more expensive phones. (Although if you DO ever get the chance to advocate for a truly bare-bones-minimalism in a future product, here's a hearty nudge nudge from this curmudgeon.)
yellowapple 9y ago
It's less than $450. That's pretty reasonable for a high-end smartphone (Samsung's Galaxy S9 clocks in at $700+), and this does look to have rather high-end specs (octa-core CPU, 2160×1440 display, 4K recording, 13MP camera, 4GB RAM, 64GB storage + SD card slot). Sure, it ain't in the same price bracket as a bargain-bin ZTE or Moto phone, but it ain't in the same specs bracket, either.

Devices like this intrigue me but the price always seems way too high. I wonder if anyone will actually come up with a minimalist phone that has a minimalist price to match.

nine_k 9y ago

It will involve minimalist features, like minimalist horsepower and screen size. Quite minimal phone-only phones do exist, like Punkt MP 101, or more conventional phones, especially kids-oriented.

makmanalp 9y ago
I had a Moto F3 for a while and the battery lasted forever but the lack of features was sort of brutal: the screen was e-ink but only an 8-segment display one so it was impossible to see things like unicode characters and even distinguish between capital and regular case sometimes. This seems a nice balance between that and a smartphone. Edit: I got my Moto F3 for 20 bucks, the Punkt is 229. Nope.

onli 9y ago

For an unconventional phone (=limited target group, risky) + the insurance + the work going into the app integration the price does not seem to be high at all, to me.

michaelmior 9y ago
It's true that in this case the insurance is a nice benefit. But as a consumer, I don't really care about the fact that the venture is risky. I'm getting a phone with fewer features, but not really paying less.

adhambadr 9y ago

honestly its the lowest thats technically possible to sell. Good components just cost that much. After vat our margin is around 35 (pre-retail) which is lower than most vendors, meaning if we sell to retail we wont make a cent. it just costs that much to get tested, working components with decent manufacturing. If you find good specs cheaper trust me they used B-grade components that will break down sooner or later.

michaelmior 9y ago
I've had good smart phones (e.g. Moto G) in the recent past for less than half that price. Maybe I'm just not in the target market.
existencebox 9y ago
I both disagree with your assertion, and find it sad that michaelmior is being downvoted. My wife uses the moto G Play. <150USD for a perfectly functional phone, and frankly I'd even call it "far from minimal," (it has features that many flagships unfortunately don't support any more, e.g. sd cards, removable batteries, and headphone jacks) and for years have looked for an even more commodity platform myself since I have no need for apps or beefy hardware. (GPS, text, html only browser, email, with barely enough horsepower to run the above + a beefy battery would be the pipedream, and sounds _not too far_ from the brick phones I used ~20 years back) As I told a coworker when I saw this post: Either our expectations of "minimal" or the english language has gotten entirely out of wack, because 350 pounds for a smartphone is so far from minimal as to be laughable. Maybe a "minimal flagship" (and this is where I'm inclined to think the gap between your view on this and mine is, where you said 'if you find good specs cheaper'. Perhaps my view on "good" is a much lower bar, but I'm perfectly happy with my 60$, 5 year old Lumia, and find it to be _far more minimal_, while directly challenging your "break down sooner or later" assertion; I've had droid flagships that didn't last as long.)
- adhambadr 9y ago
  I guess you're right we have complete perception of minimal. I wrote somewhere else our aim was to be exactly between Flagship smartphones and complete detox options like litephone or an old refurbished nokia, I think you're more looking for those options.
  - existencebox 9y ago
    You're probably right re: how we're looking at minimalism, and if that range was your aim, your price point seems much more fair. The mental dissonance came for me simply from my perception of the word "minimal;" I have a wonderful moment of "Oh man someone's finally making the phone I wish I could buy" whenever I see a thread with this or similar verbiage, then the sad realization that I'm apparently too far to the 'throw out everything but your matress' side of minimal. I was simply surprised to have not seen other feedback along this vein, and moreso when the other commenter was going grey for advocating what I thought were some good examples of models in that range. Anyway, I'd want to cap this with a friendly "good luck"; Don't take my jaded disappointment as anything more than the whinging of someone tilting at the windmills of eternally larger and more expensive phones. (Although if you DO ever get the chance to advocate for a truly bare-bones-minimalism in a future product, here's a hearty nudge nudge from this curmudgeon.)

yellowapple 9y ago

It's less than $450. That's pretty reasonable for a high-end smartphone (Samsung's Galaxy S9 clocks in at $700+), and this does look to have rather high-end specs (octa-core CPU, 2160×1440 display, 4K recording, 13MP camera, 4GB RAM, 64GB storage + SD card slot). Sure, it ain't in the same price bracket as a bargain-bin ZTE or Moto phone, but it ain't in the same specs bracket, either.