Kendrick Lamar enters the tech space with a collaboration on the Light Phone 2. Light phones offer minimalistic experiences without apps or color.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Since when is Light Phone “Kendrick Lamar’s company”?

    That explains why they’re so damn expensive.

    You could buy equally or more functional phones in the early 2000s for $100-200.

  • Fisk400@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    They all sold out and they are all packed in one dudes garage. The actual sale of them will take place over the next year over a series of ebay auction, as is tradition for limited edition things.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Considered this phone but couldn’t commit to something like that, nor can I justify such a price tag for that. Instead I’m attempting to dumb down my phone. Moving to GrapheneOS and starting from the basics is definitely a good starting point.

  • chirospasm@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have owned the Light Phone 1 and the Light Phone 2 – both were built with the intent to stay connected in a handful of ways without needing to have a full-spec’d, app-heavy, typically-sized smart phone.

    If the intent and the vibe make sense to you, then it is a wonderful approach for a more ‘minimalist’ device: you can go outdoors, travel, hike, camp, etc., without having a smart phone to pick up and play with. I dig it.

    If the intent and vibe don’t make sense to you, the Light Phone may not be a good fit.

    I really like the device, and use it often enough as a daily driver on weekends. Always glad to see some public attention on it.

  • lea@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate minimalism! This is a dumb phone that got rid of everything that made dumb phones charming.

    • PancakeLegend@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love minimalism, but dumbphones are not functionally minimal. They do less and seem “simple”, but you’re offsetting necessary utility elsewhere. Mostly they require making compromises that don’t need to be made if not for a little self-control.

      A simple black rectangle is perfectly minimal. How you set them up is everything.

  • Senex@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s be honest, he could sell poop in a ziploc bag and his fans would buy it.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s $299, which isn’t ridiculous for a phone, but this is kind of gimmicky with its Magic 8-Ball thing and, of course, its celebrity backing. I don’t know, I guess it’s not the worst price point, but considering you can get low-end Android phones for that with more functionality, I’m also guessing the people buying it are not really worried about the price.

    • designatedhacker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why not get a phone that can take, send, and receive pictures and video. It would also have maps, GPS, encrypted messaging, streaming music, audiobooks, e-books, home automation apps, ride hailing, food ordering, decent browser, etc.

      Then, stay with me here, don’t install social media apps. The lengths people go to so they can avoid social media when it is extremely avoidable is crazy to me.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s flat out false. Other than using messenger to chat with family, I haven’t had to use Facebook for anything for the 5 or so years since I stopped actively using it.

          As for “everything passes through Google”, that’s just an optional login protocol and a shitload of blockable ads.

          Also, Google isn’t social media. You could argue that YouTube has social media aspects, but those aren’t mandatory for internet participation either.

  • TomMasz@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hardly text and your call is going to voice mail. Phone things are not the reason I have a smartphone. I’d be happy with an updated Palm Pilot with connectivity.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, how I miss my Treo. If only they made a next Gen, with a new OS that had backwards compatibility for Palm apps, which were tiny and used little power.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not for a run of only 250.

      Edit: I should have explained that I was referring only to economies of scale in manufacturing of electronics. Making only 250 of some electronic device means a much higher per unit cost than if one made 10,000 of the same thing. You can look at quantity discounts of microcontrollers or sensors or things like that ok Digi-Key or Mouser and see what I mean.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah it is. A rare stupid thing is as worthless as a common stupid thing if you’re not an idiot about it.

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m talking about economies of scale ffs. Not rarity.

          Prices of electronic components goes way down beyond, say, 1000, 5000, 10000, etc.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And I’m talking about how much owning and using it is worth, regardless of the seller’s self-imposed extra expenses.