Would love to get more information on this Blloc OS in terms of updates, both security and regular. Also, a video of this thing in action wouldn't be bad either.
It's definitely an interesting concept, but for me at least I need a lot more information from the get-go to go ahead and pre-order.
Any other details about the OS? Is it an Android? How are the applications managed and what's their update pipeline? Are they whitelisted and managed by the manufacturer's own App Store? What's the privacy policy like? How often will it issue updates?
I really like the display. I've been waiting for a phone with minimalistic display to save battery ever since the Motofone F3.
But there's way too little information there to convince me to pre-order.
we def. screwed up communication as we've been focused lately on finishing hardware. its based on Android 8.1 and the apps are downloaded via play-store normally. We don't white or black list, but rather are going through the most used apps and building easier integrations for them
this reallly depends on usage, we wanted to send it to the real benchmarking websites when we release. I charge mine every 2 days which was a personal goal (to not get punished if I forgot to charge last night)
looks like a custom app launcher and some matching apps for some popular APIs. Still cool, but the reality is a bit of a letdown after the initial good impression. Ultimately, having to rely on your phone maker to keep up with every relevant service's APIs and features seems like a losing game. Seems impossible to meet everyone's expectations here long term. Also, I thought/assumed it was an e-ink display at first -- that would be cool. But the app thing, it's hard. Can't really launch an appstore for a new OS, too much momentum in the established players. Ask Microsoft. Perhaps an Android phone with an E-ink display and a custom display driver/some other cool tech to make every app in the play store work with it would be cool.
Indeed, I'm immensely curious about the OS (I'm an unabashed OS junkie) and if it's not Android based I want one just to dig into that part of it. Beyond that, the display and the GUI are absolutely gorgeous. I was always a fan of Microsoft's flat design for Windows Phone, and this takes it to another level of minimalism. I'm drooling over here.
Edit: I see below that it's Android based after all. I still love the way it looks but it's a hard pass. :-(
We had to im sorry. Its quite unrealistic for a startup to write its own OS from scratch. And there's the app topic that everyone else failed at.
We always had a vision to do an open web-based (Chromium like) os when it becomes realistic.
If you get webOS working on your hardware, you will have a small pile of very staunch supporters.
A couple of realistic caveats, and novel ideas to solve them:
1. webOS is not Android.
Android will eventually mean Fuschia, which will mean bye bye to Linux driver blobs. I'm not sure how the scene looks right now in terms of trying to squash an Android kernel and blobs together with webOS userspace. Might work, might produce rueful laughter.
One interesting thing you could do is lead a community effort to get webOS running on top of Fuschia, which is still very new but functions well enough to fully come up graphically and boot into a Chromium-based session (yep!).
To me, that suggests enough of the Fuschia core is "set" and unlikely to change that RIGHT NOW is the perfect time to quietly catch up to feature parity with alternative userspaces, and when Android does "the big switchover" (it's obvious that's the goal, Fuschia has things like 120fps update targets etc), you'll suddenly have more hardware support than any other platform.
2. webOS has no real apps.
No point denying this is true. Facebook isn't releasing a webOS app. That cements a lot of things. There's also the fact that LG bought webOS for TVs. That did nothing to kill it on phones, but the move certainly did shift all of the tech-prosumer expectancy/focus over to the TV space and leave the webOS-on-phones/tablets sector full of tumbleweeds. And nothing's really changing that.
The webOS-on-Fuschia idea would be unlikely to trigger wholesale adoption of the platform. Not going to do it.
I see a couple of alternatives:
0. You kind of get dual-boot for free anyway
1. Implement hardware-accelerated KVM for ARM on Fuschia, and run Android in a VM
2. Implement kernel-level containerization/virtualization aka what's described under "Virtualization" in http://kernelthread.com/projects/
3. Figure out how Fuschia works at the kernel level and work out how to run the webOS and Android userspaces side by side, either running simultaneously or stopping one to launch the other
(I don't typically start lists at 0, but that first point felt so obvious I used a 0 so I could include it in the list.)
You get 0 for free, and dual booting will appeal to some who want the closure of "Android is simply not running".
1 is... I included that one for comparison :)
2 and 3 seem interesting. I'd tackle these by seeing how the Fuschia team react to being engaged "from the outside". You could lead that effort; I don't think anything is being done in that regard at this point (eg unlike how Chromium does get lots of external contributions from individuals).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
thanks a lot and sure I def. got your point and I think our target is different than you (you should checkout the other products like lite & punkt).
The tag - minimalist was written by the OP and not us, we barely use (and stopping more often) the term minimalism esp. that closely to our brand / product. our html title is "back to the root" and our slogan is "people first" (printed on the packaging & on the back of the phone) as it better describes our mission.
If your margin is 35, you are going to go out of business unless you can find a way to create additional revenue streams. Your customer lifetime value is likely going to be less than 100, if that. If you sell a million customers (which I think is a very difficult number to reach with this semi-niche phone,) you are going to still be struggling over the long term. A 10% margin is not enough. One misstep wipes out your margin. Also with each phone you sell, there will be additional support and warranty expenses that likely haven’t been added to your unit cost.
If wish you good luck of course, but just be aware that building the phone — that’s the easy part: sales, support and the software — that’s a lot of “stuff” that costs significant money — an expense that continues past the shipping of the actual device.
There are two ways to win in the phone business- market share/volume or profit per unit. You are also competing against established manufacturers with essentially a barely-deferentiated product and, given your margins, customer acquisition is going to be very, very tough.
If it were me, I’d work on a completely new OS — I’d build an entirely new thing rather than just something marginally different — and ostensibly, marginally better. A generic phone with a different flavor of Android — do you really want to go up against the Samsung’s and Huawei’s?
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.
Also, Surf with the PSP user agent is really good.
But someone will create a clamshell like device as the old 90-00's PDA with Linux, and it will show Android as a clunky device to create media instead of being just a TV substitute.
I imagine it will be oled or something similar. Any black pixels will simply be off. Not sure how a white pixel saves power though, since it needs all three RGB to make white.
good observation! with this contrast 10% backlight is enough for almost 80% of lighting conditions.
we initially used OLED and our phones after testing managed to use on average around 65% of the energy with our ui. We're dropping it unfortunately as its a supply-chain nightmare.. (for now). Black and white mainly increases your focus sharply
I found the same, and my eyesight's still mostly OK. The use of grey text on a grey background doesn't exactly help, and that kind of "design over usability" choice is a bit of a red flag for the product itself.
who is the manufacturer? what country is it manufactured in?
basic information that no one provides, and you have to go to the store to look at the back of the box to see...
I really liked the UI of windows mobile 8 (10 a bit less so) and I find it quite unfortunate that MS decided to 'kill' the platform (there are rumours about new lumia, buuuut) - it was very well optimised, it was easy to grasp and was intuitive, even for older people (got one for my dad and didn't have to explain too much how to use it).
Will you be able to remove or add different widgets (FB/Uber/Maps) on the phone or are you locked with what is pre-loaded?
This is getting very close to what I want in a phone - a pared down smartphone that has the basic utilities for when I am away from a desktop/laptop without the social + internet distractions.
I was initially very excited about this device until I read that any app can be downloaded from the Play Store. I doubt my willpower is strong enough to stop me from eventually downloading a browser, Reddit, Instagram, etc... Therefore, to me, this phone is really no different than the iPhone that I already own.
What I'd prefer is a device with no ability to download social apps, a browser, games or even news apps (when did 24/7 access to the news become a necessity?). A device like this is bold but, if it caught on, could change society in a positive way. No more endless checking of social media, the news etc. while on the go or in the company of friends/family. It could strengthen the connections that we have with others.
mmm. that was more or less our initial concept in 2016 : https://www.instagram.com/p/BQ5hmZqhkNU/?taken-by=bllocphone. But the main feedback and learning was: you can't do without apps. Theres an app for everything and little things and you need it. (like the metro app for a tiny village somewhere)
However overall UI design & flow matters, and currently everything is designed to make u more addicted. Try switching from an iphone to an older Android, install a minimalistic Launcher and you'll see how less you check facebook and the news. However its slow af and some apps won't work.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I don't get if the grey scale is only for the web design or the phone is all black and white. Is gray the color color i can pick for the phone? What if I want a red phone? Is it gonna be a darker black phone?
Its an engineering and repairability nightmare, but I've often thought to myself how pretty a phone would be in a seamless soap bar form factor, with an eink display, bone conduction audio, no buttons or ports and just inductive charging.
When powered off it would just be a completely featureless slab. You could even write the devices logo onto the display before powering it off to do branding without redundancy.
It is odd how that has not happened in the mobile phone form factor or even as part of an add on case.
I do think you have a point in that there should be marketspace for what the old Nokia was - something that could stay on all week without babysitting the battery.
Website accessibility is possibly an important part of this, if everyone wrote proper responsive websites that met accessibility standards to look good on mobile then these should read fine on an E-ink display. All text messaging apps should look fine too.
The trick to making the device work is probably the camera, if you could easily connect the screen of another phone to it then you could do selfies and what not. A convenient device to facilitate that, maybe top up the battery of the main phone and work independently of the main phone on a duplicate/tied in SIM, that could work.
> I do think you have a point in that there should be marketspace for what the old Nokia was - something that could stay on all week without babysitting the battery.
There is, besides aliexpress which has a huge selection (including nokia knockoffs) most carriers have a couple super budget non smart phones.
So, I'll give some unsolicited recommendations for your website, regarding accessibility:
- The contrast between the body text and background is to low; it makes it difficult for people with visual impairments to use the website.
- Font size and font weight, the font is too thin and adding this to the low color contrast, it makes it even more difficult to read.
- Images that don't add meaning (textually) to the page, e.g., the logos you use on the "Agile and precise" section. It's a good idea to add `aria-hidden="true"` so they don't "distract" screen readers.
- Also, several images don't have their alt tag, which describes the image to screen readers.
- I can't navigate your website with my keyword.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but your company builds assistive technology--yes, a phone is an assistive device--so it makes sense that you take care of your primary point of sales, your website, and make it accessible to everybody.
thx for taking the time, will consider the feedback in our re-launch (we were working already on making our pos better) this thread took us by surprise while reworking it
The layout is also broken on Firefox mobile for Android (not a good impression for a website for an Android phone...). The text on the first slide runs off the screen, the second slide is just blank? And the slide with tech specs has the text all jumbled together and overlapping.
Some even blunter unsolicited feedback: test your website with about:config javascript.enabled = false. thinkxl has the right idea here. Edit: also, I just realized I'm agreeing with a social justice warrior about something; I'm not sure whether to feel disgust or vindication; I'll probably go with novelty.
> I just realized I’m agreeing with a social justice warrior about something
Why are you accusing thinkxl of being a “social justice warrior” and why, exactly do you feel that that undermines your agreement? Is website usability a liberal ideology?
Lacking any actual justification your edit feels very out of place on hn.
Actually, I was referring to https://sonniesedge.co.uk/posts/progressive-enhancement, who literally self-identifies as a "whiney SJW feminist fuck" in the first paragraph. And it's less "undermines my agreement" and more "Eww, I'm on the same side of this argument as such-and-such evil person; please don't assume this means I agree with them about anything else.". I'd go back and clarify, but the edit window is over.
I was writing a mail but since I saw you are here, I thought maybe I should share this questions here itself. Hopefully others might chip in too:
1. Is it a black & white phone? Or does it use e-Ink (how comfortable is it for the eyes)? (You have mentioned I can enjoy photos with full colour with some "Colour Touch" tech but that's it, there's nothing else regarding it at all). Do you have another website or page where you have discussed your specs in detail?
2. What about battery life? If, assuming, it's not a colour screen then does it have a ridiculously good battery life?
3. Is this phone already a reality or is it just a concept phone or designs as of now and you will be developing it later?
4. What about the privacy and security aspects of this phone?
5. What version of Android is it using, if at all it is using Android? What about updates - any promised/guaranteed date of OS version upgrade?
6. International shipping? International warranty? How do you handle this?
7. Any plans for a smaller phone, something like iPhone SE/5S size (mentioned this as its my current phone)? I mean in ~4 inch ballpark.
The previous comments mentioned poor contrast and small text for visually impaired. I have great eyesight and I had a hard time reading your site. I had to literally select text in some areas to even be able to read it at all, combined with zooming in. (I have a 27" monitor!)
That being said, I really hope you succeed, I really want a repairable long term phone in the future. Not sure about what B&W adds to this, but it you offer a chopped down cheaper version (along side your flagship phone), it's far less of a risk to give it a try.
Your website, ironically, breaks at a smaller viewport (at least my small screened firefox on desktop).
I would really consider making this work on tablet / mobile devices, and fixing the accessibility ASAP. Especially considering the product you are trying to sell.
How can I trust your phone hardware if your website doesn't meet modern day standards?
Come on, the website is only text, images, and a few forms, why would you render it in JavaScript. I don't see any additional benefit compared with plain HTML, CSS.
It is not a rich web application, even if it were.
Also, there's been server-side rendering for a while now.
So, in that case we should be seeing everything but the stripe form! Its not really fair to blame them to make a non js website though. They might not have put time into it
I stopped reading the article after 10 lines. I'm not easily offended, but when reading an opinion that has the F-word every line, it's just a turn-off.
the light phone 1 did just sms and calls, the light phone 2 expands on that. i guess blloc is just a modernist phone?
blloc and lightphone both stand out from other phones because they have a greyscale ui, which lets them use eink for something like 10x battery life. that’s the selling point, i think.
edit: nevermind, this is lcd but still saves on battery life bc it’s greyscale
EDIT: Given the presence Blloc has established online, it's likely that this is a real project. My apologies to adhambadr and the rest of the team.
-------------------
I noticed this as well. The images of the device are entirely inconsistent with one another [0].
* Rendering effects are visible in some of the images
* The front is displayed inconsistently. In some renders, a speaker is shown. In others, it is absent.
* The front is shown as having a black bezel at the top in some images and on the bottom in others.
* The radius of the rounded corners fluctuates between top and bottom and from image to image
* On the back, the fingerprint reader, camera lens, and LED may or may not be present from image to image
* Antenna cut outs are depicted as either horizontal or vertical
* The side buttons do not appear congruent
* The information on the back is inconsistent (sometimes device info, sometimes Blloc)
* The camera style fluctuates from image to image (sometimes single lens, sometimes dual lens)
On the flip side, the domain has been registered since 2016 [1] and the project has been referenced on other sites [2][3] (using some of the same rendered images). The Instagram [4] has had posts since 2017, but, again, most appear to be renders.
From adhambadr: trademark application [5] and university article [6]
not sure how to proof we're legit, but here are some more links : from berlin university (https://bit.ly/2vDJHSs) & our
trademark registration : https://bit.ly/2HoiXed (why would we bother if it was a scam?)
pictures are a mix of renders and post edited photos, the models changed over time as we tested / verified components
No comment on the original question, but a simple set of photos taken today of you handling the phone would be proof. Trademark registrations are relatively cheap and easy, pointing to one as proof that you made a phone seems really sketchy. Again, not taking sides here.
appreciate the honest edit mate. We def. did something wrong on communication to give some people this perception will work on it. Let me know if you any other suggestions / questions
>The AOSP doesn't come with Google Services. You can build a device and sell it, but it will not have the incredibly important set of Google Apps people love, not even Google Play (so people cannot go and download Google Maps and Gmail afterwards).
Hmmm, and yet this comes with Google Maps... Suspicious...
Edit: A post below indicates that it is Android 8.1. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like a trademark violation to sell Android but call it something else.
Lots of companies sell Android devices without explicitly calling it Android. The most notable example is Amazon (Android - without GApps - is the OS on pretty much everything in the Fire line, e.g. Fire Tab and Fire TV).
In other words, I think you've got it backwards: you're not allowed to use Google's branding/trademarks (including "Android") unless you have authorization from Google. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of any requirement to call the OS "Android" even with that authorization; the word "Android" doesn't show up at all in the official product page for Samsung's Galaxy S9 [0].
Incorrect. Look at the specs page:
OS
Android O (8.0)
It's not just that it's not visible, it's the Blloc is pretending they invented an entire new os ("Blloc OS").
Amazon Fire is a different story, because they package their own app store (not the Google Play Store). But Blloc is loading the Play Store. I am fairly sure that a requirement of doing so means you have to accept the Google branding (i.e. you have to call it Android).
Well shoot. I even did a Ctrl-F on the page and got zero results, probably because it was hidden under that drop-down.
Regardless, worst-case is they just have to tweak their OS branding to be "Android with Blloc Root" (which is what HTC does, i.e. "Android with HTC Sense"). Yet I'm not finding anything which explicitly requires that (only finding instances where use of Android branding is not allowed, e.g. FireOS).
>Instead of multiple distractions we aim for focus. Instead of fragmented conversations, we strive for continuity and fluidity. Booking your flight, checking the weather or ordering an Uber, it all happens in one place, the Root.
I don't see how this will work but reading my messages whilst being informed about my Uber, flights, and/or weather seems quite fragmented and unfocused.
Basic Android phone with fancy skin, what am I missing? I suppose their custom launcher app might be neat, but I'm not sure I'd buy complete phone just for that..
173 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 239 ms ] threadHas anyone seen any details about ship-date / progress?
It's definitely an interesting concept, but for me at least I need a lot more information from the get-go to go ahead and pre-order.
Everything indicates this is Android based. Some remarked it was compatible with the Play Store.
I really like the display. I've been waiting for a phone with minimalistic display to save battery ever since the Motofone F3.
But there's way too little information there to convince me to pre-order.
I'll show myself out.
It's the same OS, and 99% of people that install Lineage install the GApps otherwise the device is barely usable.
if you're not, you can still use Gapps nano or pico. thats basically just the play store and the service api.
[0] https://microg.org [1] http://opengapps.org
Edit: I see below that it's Android based after all. I still love the way it looks but it's a hard pass. :-(
If you get webOS working on your hardware, you will have a small pile of very staunch supporters.
A couple of realistic caveats, and novel ideas to solve them:
1. webOS is not Android.
Android will eventually mean Fuschia, which will mean bye bye to Linux driver blobs. I'm not sure how the scene looks right now in terms of trying to squash an Android kernel and blobs together with webOS userspace. Might work, might produce rueful laughter.
One interesting thing you could do is lead a community effort to get webOS running on top of Fuschia, which is still very new but functions well enough to fully come up graphically and boot into a Chromium-based session (yep!).
To me, that suggests enough of the Fuschia core is "set" and unlikely to change that RIGHT NOW is the perfect time to quietly catch up to feature parity with alternative userspaces, and when Android does "the big switchover" (it's obvious that's the goal, Fuschia has things like 120fps update targets etc), you'll suddenly have more hardware support than any other platform.
2. webOS has no real apps.
No point denying this is true. Facebook isn't releasing a webOS app. That cements a lot of things. There's also the fact that LG bought webOS for TVs. That did nothing to kill it on phones, but the move certainly did shift all of the tech-prosumer expectancy/focus over to the TV space and leave the webOS-on-phones/tablets sector full of tumbleweeds. And nothing's really changing that.
The webOS-on-Fuschia idea would be unlikely to trigger wholesale adoption of the platform. Not going to do it.
I see a couple of alternatives:
0. You kind of get dual-boot for free anyway
1. Implement hardware-accelerated KVM for ARM on Fuschia, and run Android in a VM
2. Implement kernel-level containerization/virtualization aka what's described under "Virtualization" in http://kernelthread.com/projects/
3. Figure out how Fuschia works at the kernel level and work out how to run the webOS and Android userspaces side by side, either running simultaneously or stopping one to launch the other
(I don't typically start lists at 0, but that first point felt so obvious I used a 0 so I could include it in the list.)
You get 0 for free, and dual booting will appeal to some who want the closure of "Android is simply not running".
1 is... I included that one for comparison :)
2 and 3 seem interesting. I'd tackle these by seeing how the Fuschia team react to being engaged "from the outside". You could lead that effort; I don't think anything is being done in that regard at this point (eg unlike how Chromium does get lots of external contributions from individuals).
Well, that's my 2c anyway.
Quite minimal phone-only phones do exist, like Punkt MP 101, or more conventional phones, especially kids-oriented.
Edit: I got my Moto F3 for 20 bucks, the Punkt is 229. Nope.
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.)
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.)
If wish you good luck of course, but just be aware that building the phone — that’s the easy part: sales, support and the software — that’s a lot of “stuff” that costs significant money — an expense that continues past the shipping of the actual device.
There are two ways to win in the phone business- market share/volume or profit per unit. You are also competing against established manufacturers with essentially a barely-deferentiated product and, given your margins, customer acquisition is going to be very, very tough.
If it were me, I’d work on a completely new OS — I’d build an entirely new thing rather than just something marginally different — and ostensibly, marginally better. A generic phone with a different flavor of Android — do you really want to go up against the Samsung’s and Huawei’s?
No disrespect intended — I hope you succeed!
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.
Good luck running e.g. Google Maps or Firefox on a CHIP.
But someone will create a clamshell like device as the old 90-00's PDA with Linux, and it will show Android as a clunky device to create media instead of being just a TV substitute.
I can imagine they keep backlight down most of the time.
But can you bump up the font size? Being partially sighted means that with the current fontSize of 10px the site is unreadable to me.
Also the specscontainer does not contain all of the 'outline' image of the phone.
What I do see is the UI which looks good (at least on pictures), and, above all, looks consistent.
There would be definitely a market for such an UI. (It's more lucrative if sold with dedicated hardware, of course.)
I really liked the UI of windows mobile 8 (10 a bit less so) and I find it quite unfortunate that MS decided to 'kill' the platform (there are rumours about new lumia, buuuut) - it was very well optimised, it was easy to grasp and was intuitive, even for older people (got one for my dad and didn't have to explain too much how to use it).
This is getting very close to what I want in a phone - a pared down smartphone that has the basic utilities for when I am away from a desktop/laptop without the social + internet distractions.
What I'd prefer is a device with no ability to download social apps, a browser, games or even news apps (when did 24/7 access to the news become a necessity?). A device like this is bold but, if it caught on, could change society in a positive way. No more endless checking of social media, the news etc. while on the go or in the company of friends/family. It could strengthen the connections that we have with others.
Also, you can just install a parental control application and block any app store downloads.
There's your minimalist right there.
(Also, what is that, a font for ants?)
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/light-phone-2-design#
When powered off it would just be a completely featureless slab. You could even write the devices logo onto the display before powering it off to do branding without redundancy.
Its a shame that eink hasn't really hit the mobile market yet.
I do think you have a point in that there should be marketspace for what the old Nokia was - something that could stay on all week without babysitting the battery.
Website accessibility is possibly an important part of this, if everyone wrote proper responsive websites that met accessibility standards to look good on mobile then these should read fine on an E-ink display. All text messaging apps should look fine too.
The trick to making the device work is probably the camera, if you could easily connect the screen of another phone to it then you could do selfies and what not. A convenient device to facilitate that, maybe top up the battery of the main phone and work independently of the main phone on a duplicate/tied in SIM, that could work.
There is, besides aliexpress which has a huge selection (including nokia knockoffs) most carriers have a couple super budget non smart phones.
- The contrast between the body text and background is to low; it makes it difficult for people with visual impairments to use the website.
- Font size and font weight, the font is too thin and adding this to the low color contrast, it makes it even more difficult to read.
- Images that don't add meaning (textually) to the page, e.g., the logos you use on the "Agile and precise" section. It's a good idea to add `aria-hidden="true"` so they don't "distract" screen readers.
- Also, several images don't have their alt tag, which describes the image to screen readers.
- I can't navigate your website with my keyword.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but your company builds assistive technology--yes, a phone is an assistive device--so it makes sense that you take care of your primary point of sales, your website, and make it accessible to everybody.
Why are you accusing thinkxl of being a “social justice warrior” and why, exactly do you feel that that undermines your agreement? Is website usability a liberal ideology? Lacking any actual justification your edit feels very out of place on hn.
1. Is it a black & white phone? Or does it use e-Ink (how comfortable is it for the eyes)? (You have mentioned I can enjoy photos with full colour with some "Colour Touch" tech but that's it, there's nothing else regarding it at all). Do you have another website or page where you have discussed your specs in detail?
2. What about battery life? If, assuming, it's not a colour screen then does it have a ridiculously good battery life?
3. Is this phone already a reality or is it just a concept phone or designs as of now and you will be developing it later?
4. What about the privacy and security aspects of this phone?
5. What version of Android is it using, if at all it is using Android? What about updates - any promised/guaranteed date of OS version upgrade?
6. International shipping? International warranty? How do you handle this?
7. Any plans for a smaller phone, something like iPhone SE/5S size (mentioned this as its my current phone)? I mean in ~4 inch ballpark.
That being said, I really hope you succeed, I really want a repairable long term phone in the future. Not sure about what B&W adds to this, but it you offer a chopped down cheaper version (along side your flagship phone), it's far less of a risk to give it a try.
Your website, ironically, breaks at a smaller viewport (at least my small screened firefox on desktop).
I would really consider making this work on tablet / mobile devices, and fixing the accessibility ASAP. Especially considering the product you are trying to sell.
How can I trust your phone hardware if your website doesn't meet modern day standards?
Come on, the website is only text, images, and a few forms, why would you render it in JavaScript. I don't see any additional benefit compared with plain HTML, CSS.
It is not a rich web application, even if it were.
Also, there's been server-side rendering for a while now.
Edit: Opinion
Oh my, the article describes itself.
I stopped reading the article after 10 lines. I'm not easily offended, but when reading an opinion that has the F-word every line, it's just a turn-off.
I won't honor it with my IE (don't feel like giving Stripe a ping).
Do you have any working versions of the phone?
A video of the phone being used?
All pictures look like renders, not real devices.
Not sure who would pre-order something with such little information.
Based on the existing information, this looks to be a phone running on Android. And it'll be preinstalled with Uber and Facebook messenger.
So it's a minimalist phone for people who don't care about privacy? I don't get it.
blloc and lightphone both stand out from other phones because they have a greyscale ui, which lets them use eink for something like 10x battery life. that’s the selling point, i think.
edit: nevermind, this is lcd but still saves on battery life bc it’s greyscale
-------------------
I noticed this as well. The images of the device are entirely inconsistent with one another [0].
* Rendering effects are visible in some of the images
* The front is displayed inconsistently. In some renders, a speaker is shown. In others, it is absent.
* The front is shown as having a black bezel at the top in some images and on the bottom in others.
* The radius of the rounded corners fluctuates between top and bottom and from image to image
* On the back, the fingerprint reader, camera lens, and LED may or may not be present from image to image
* Antenna cut outs are depicted as either horizontal or vertical
* The side buttons do not appear congruent
* The information on the back is inconsistent (sometimes device info, sometimes Blloc)
* The camera style fluctuates from image to image (sometimes single lens, sometimes dual lens)
On the flip side, the domain has been registered since 2016 [1] and the project has been referenced on other sites [2][3] (using some of the same rendered images). The Instagram [4] has had posts since 2017, but, again, most appear to be renders.
From adhambadr: trademark application [5] and university article [6]
[0] https://imgur.com/a/W6ogsZJ
[1] https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=blloc.com
[2] https://competition.adesignaward.com/design.php?ID=54753
[3] http://startuptv.io/startups/blloc-die-smartphone-alternativ...
[4] https://www.instagram.com/bllocphone/
[5] https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/register/3020172...
[6] https://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/profund/aktuelles/news/EXIST-...
pictures are a mix of renders and post edited photos, the models changed over time as we tested / verified components
>The AOSP doesn't come with Google Services. You can build a device and sell it, but it will not have the incredibly important set of Google Apps people love, not even Google Play (so people cannot go and download Google Maps and Gmail afterwards).
Hmmm, and yet this comes with Google Maps... Suspicious...
Edit: A post below indicates that it is Android 8.1. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like a trademark violation to sell Android but call it something else.
In other words, I think you've got it backwards: you're not allowed to use Google's branding/trademarks (including "Android") unless you have authorization from Google. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of any requirement to call the OS "Android" even with that authorization; the word "Android" doesn't show up at all in the official product page for Samsung's Galaxy S9 [0].
[0]: https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/phones/galaxy-s/galaxy-s9-...
It's not just that it's not visible, it's the Blloc is pretending they invented an entire new os ("Blloc OS").
Amazon Fire is a different story, because they package their own app store (not the Google Play Store). But Blloc is loading the Play Store. I am fairly sure that a requirement of doing so means you have to accept the Google branding (i.e. you have to call it Android).
Regardless, worst-case is they just have to tweak their OS branding to be "Android with Blloc Root" (which is what HTC does, i.e. "Android with HTC Sense"). Yet I'm not finding anything which explicitly requires that (only finding instances where use of Android branding is not allowed, e.g. FireOS).
I don't see how this will work but reading my messages whilst being informed about my Uber, flights, and/or weather seems quite fragmented and unfocused.