Slashdot Mirror


"Disposable" Cell Phone Actually Repackaged Nokia

ewhac writes "Hop-On.com apparently started distributing the first versions of their disposable/recyclable cell phones, which will offer 60 minutes for $30. Hop-On claims their proprietary technology makes this possible. However, the San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that, upon cracking open the phones, they found not the kind of disposable cell phone technology covered earlier on Slashdot, but a jury-rigged Nokia. When confronted, Hop-On CEO Peter Michaels dodged by saying the phones the Chronicle took apart were, "promotional samples only. They are not Hop-On production phones." The article also calls into serious question Hop-On's other claims, and also points out California revoked Hop-On's corporate status last month."

5 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. More pollution by yggdrazil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the point about disposable mobiles anyway? It's just more pollution. Less quality. It's just plain idiotic.

    There should be a big fee on disposable mobiles to cover the recycling costs of the stuff.

    Plus mobiles are terminals which do a lot more than voice telephony. This trend will only accellerate in the years to come.

  2. True business accumen... by FyRE666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Step 1. Sell $250 phones for $30.
    Step 2.
    Step 3. Profit!

  3. disposable cell phones by Xthlc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the better ideas for a disposable phone that I've seen came out of a student contest run by [IIRC] Metropolis magazine.

    It consisted of a thick "business card" phone -- a circuit printed on plastic and wrapped in paper, slightly larger than your average business card. The phone had about 60 minutes of talk time, couldn't receive calls, and had a single large button on one side. The idea was that you could buy a sheet of these phones for about $5-10 per, print your business card on them, and "burn" your own number into the phone. Pressing the button on the phone dialed that number.

    This is, of course, insanely useful. A first-contact client can phone you back with very little effort, without having to pay for the call. 911 emergency phones can be given away or sold in stores. Vending machines could let you key in any number you liked (say, your SO) and print up a batch of phones for you.

    I think it's on ultra-low-end applications like these that disposable cell phones will really find their stride. Even if Hop-On was legitimate, they'd have a hard time competing against companies like Cricket. Service is already a commodity, and people seem to like the flexibility and robustness of NON-disposable phones.

  4. Hilarious by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In a former life, I worked on a similar scam (at the time, unknowingly). It was for one of the first of the Customer-Owned Payphones back around 1985, called COCOT or COPTS phones.

    I won't memtion the exact brand name, but I was one of two design engineers that designed this payphone. The entire industry was new, having just been deregulated. There were about 5 companies producing them at the start, and about 30 by the end, so the industry experienced explosive growth (just like the .COM boom of a year ago).

    The two owners of the company had us start designing the phone. They then proceeded to march in Investors to see "the phone" work, well before it's design was even finalized. At first, we rigged a mock-up to act something like a phone.

    "Harumph, it works", claimed the investors. Eventually, we did design and have a fully functional payphone. But most of the phones out there in the industry were horrible. They didn't look or act like Ma Bell payphones, and the most critical areas, how much to charge for the call, and answer detetion (do I thake or return the user's money?) were dismal and highly unreliable.
    In fact at one point it seemed that no-one could get these areas of operation reliable.

    I assume it was at this point the owners decided to make it a full-blown scam. They sold the crap out of the phone. They sold EXCLUSIVE rights to manufacture the phone to at least 5 companies that I heard of afterward.

    The funniest part of the whole story is that my parter and I actually screwed up the whole scam by making the phone actually work well. Instead of doing a nose-dive in 6 months as they expected, the company endured successfully for 4 years!

    If anyone has ever seen the movie "The Producers" by Mel Brooks, then you know the plot - oversell the product many 100% - then BK the company and you don't have to pay any investors back. Well, the same thing happened.

    Last I heard from the owners, they were hiding out in Snake's Navel, Arizona, and one actually called me, late one night, drunk off his ass, to bitch me out personally for costing him Millions!! Snicker.

    Well anyway, I smell the EXACT same type of scam here. These are the bait for the investors, even with the admission that they are mock-ups of the final design. My prediction is, once the money is raked in, then actual production will start on the phone and they'll find there's no way it can be done for $30.00. The people they hired will be left holding the bag, and the bills for manufacturing phones that actually tunred out to cost $100.00 to $200.00 or so like any other phone.

    And the owners? They'll be joining the Scammer's Relocation Program in Snake's Navel, AZ.

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  5. Re:Ummm... so? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > The phones in question were distributed to media-types only to demonstrate the supposed proprietary technology. They were not purchased by end users.

    And when someone opened the phone to see what made it tick, they saw no evidence that a disposable phone tech existed, only what appeared to be a cleverly-rigged demo by a company with (as the article describes) a questionable history of legal/regulatory/disciplinary actions against it.

    I smell a letter to Fritz Hollings in the making:

    "Sir, I'm an ethikul bidnizzman now facing the possibility of fraud charges, SEC charges, and a class-action lawsuit from angry investors because someone had a jeweller's screwdriver and opened the demo unit to discover that my new proprietary tech was just a rigged demo with someone else's product in a cheap paper shell that relied on nobody in the press opening the demo units!

    We need a law requiring that all electronics be shipped with inbuilt rods of thermite hooked up to photocells, so that the products automatically self-immolate whenever opened by criminal hackers! (The current market-based solution of merely voiding the warranty is clearly an insufficient deterrent.)

    Similarly, a jeweller's screwdriver ought to be used by jewellers only. I propose a licencing requirement for screwdrivers under a certain diameter, to minimize the risk of screwdriver technology falling into the hands of those who would use them to open electronic devices. Screwdrivers are clearly a reverse-engineering enabling tool, and their use must be restricted.

    My business model requires new legislation mandating the tamperproofing with auto-destruct devices in all electronic components in the next session, along with compulsory licensing for reverse-engineering tools. As I'm sure you're well aware, the livelihood of the entire rigged demo industry depends on the suckers not realizing it's all smoke and mirrors until after we get financing.

    I propose this new law be called the Cellphone Bidnizzman Demonstration Technology Protection Act (CBDTPA), and claim it will encourage entreprenooers to produce longer and more breathless press releases, leading to higher stock prices for entreprenooers without the risk of having the schemes exposed by illegal criminal terrorist hackers armed with jewellers' screwdrivers.

    Enclosed, please find a big bag of money.

    Sincerely..."