Hop-On Hops Back On the PR Bandwagon

I thought CNN's gushing forth of breathless admiration in today's piece: 'Disposable cell phones on the way' sounded familiar. Yep, it's Hop-On, the same company Slashdotters took to task last March ('Disposable' Cell Phone Actually Repackaged Nokia) after reading the San Francisco Chronicle's expose ("Sample 'new' cell phone really just modified Nokia [8260]"). Maybe this time the technology is for real. Or maybe I'm just too skeptical for my own good. Caveat lector.

Comments

What an appauling, irresponsible waste

[Telex4]

This idea of "disposable" everything is really attrocious. We have finite resources on this planet, a delicate ecosystem, and yet we go around making as many things as possible disposable, consumable, bulk-buyable. These phones are just another step down the road to complet unsustainability; no technology could sustain this nonsense.

Besides that, mobile phones are also a "moral minefield", as a NewScientist article points out, because they require components that are arguably fuelling a civil war in Congo that is tearing the country (and its people) apart.

Sure, convenience is nice, but isn't this just a bit much? They offer a $5 rebate to people who bring them back, but I doubt $5 is going to tempt the rich executives who the article suggests these might be marketed at (though it probably will tempt the lower income people it also mentions).

It's also probably going to attract even more kids who don't have ethe money for a phone right now, and who really shouldn't have them for medical (and IMO social) reasons. It's just another case of the predominantly Western consumer looking no farther than his/her own convenience.

Re:disposable culture

[Telex4]

There's enough food in *total*, but most of it is in Europe and North America, where people have good soil, and good climate and enough unecessary technology to make more than enough food.

I hatee to burst your bubble, but whilst many of the food shortage problems in Africa are man-made, drought still takes a heavy toll, and one of the major problems there at the moment is that the leaders and other better-off countries aren't putting enough money into buying food reservers (many African leaders have a taste for luxuries built on the death of their subjects).

But there is also a chronic population problem in developing countries - they simply cannot sustain the population in terms of food and money, in part because of western policy, in part because of local policy, and in part becausee of natural phenomena.

Re:disposable culture

[lordaych]

Indeed, the overpopulation issue might be irrelevant at this point, but the question still remains -- why should we focus on "disposable" technologies rather than make the best use out of the available resources? Whether or not overpopulation is an issue right now has no bearing on the fact that our resources are in fact limited, and we should be putting forth some sort of effort to recycling what can be recycling rather than wasting time and effort churning up more resources.

I for one would include maximizing the utility of our resources as an important component to technological progress. I can understand trying to make things inexpensive, but this whole "disposable culture" paradigm has not been constructed for the benefit of the consumer or the environment in which they live. It's just another way to get people to pay for the same thing more than once.

Price is the obvious issue here

[mblase]

Remember how silly disposable cameras once seemed? "When they first came out, most people thought, 'Ah, why would I want a disposable camera? That changed rather quickly" when consumers discovered new uses for them, said Michaels.

Yes, but I could always buy disposable cameras for around $10 (US), and today can buy cheap non-flash ones for around $6. That's easy to justify. Sixty minutes of air time for $40 isn't quite as easy to throw away. That $10 target is a big psychological barrier for consumers when the word "disposable" is involved.

AT&T can get me $0.05 per minute for state-to-state long distance, twice that for in-state long distance. My non-disposable cell phone gets me 2000 minutes per month for around $100, or $0.20 per minute. If I'm buying a disposable phone, I'd like to pay no more than $0.30-$0.40 per minute, or about $10 for half an hour. For that kind of money, I'd happily send one with my daughter to summer camp, or even take it on vacation myself.

Bottom line: $40 is too much. $20 is managable. $10 is ideal, and if they could hit that dollar amount customers would beat a path to their door.

Logical Step...

[tunabomber]

According to a related story, the cellphones that people commonly use now are practically treated as disposables. I guess they're not out of their minds to create a phone that is at least recycleable.

Does anyone do research anymore?

[monkeydo]

How could CNN print this crap without checking into the history of this company? Surely someone there remembers that this same company has pulled this scam before. Hop-On keeps issuing press releases every month or so touting how close they are to product release, and how succesful they are even though no one has seen one of their phones.

According to all of their press releases they will have CDMA, TDMA, and GSM phones. Quite an engineering and desgin feat for a company that employs 15 people.

Always nice with new inventions...but

[BuR4N]

Its always nice when someone comes up with a new concept but it would be nice if these things stays on the drawing board for the sake of our environment, I'm not saying this will melt more iceberg's or enlarge the ozone hole, but its a trend, we don't need more disposal things we need better built things that last's longer, like my unbreakable HP48..