225
Commodore is back with a de-Googled feature phone for the anti-doomscrolling crowd
(www.androidcentral.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
225 points (97.5% liked)
DeGoogle Yourself
17065 readers
55 users here now
A community for those that would like to get away from Google.
Here you may post anything related to DeGoogling, why we should do it or good software alternatives!
Rules
-
Be respectful even in disagreement
-
No advertising unless it is very relevent and justified. Do not do this excessively.
-
No low value posts / memes. We or you need to learn, or discuss something.
Related communities
!privacyguides@lemmy.one !privacy@lemmy.ml !privatelife@lemmy.ml !linuxphones@lemmy.ml !fossdroid@social.fossware.space !fdroid@lemmy.ml
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good idea, it depends on the implementation though - sometimes having a browser on demand is important.
How do you think people managed before smart phones?
Nothing’s that important it can’t wait to get home or to a library, or call someone and get them to check if it is THAT important.
So many places now just assume you have a phone. I've been to restaurants that don't have physical menus by default and just have a QR on the table.
I’ve never been to one that didn’t have a paper menu for the elderly or otherwise less abled. Or they have a tablet for you to use.
From the article (emphasis mine):
You can scan a QR code, but what's the point if you don't have a browser to follow the link to the menu?
QR codes in restaurants are usually just links. Without a browser how would you follow them?
I’m not saying it’s unmanageable, I’m saying it’s useful to have one.
A web browser is not the problem in most people’s cases, social media is. The point of a dumb smartphone is to keep all the useful tools while banning the harmful ones.
No, if people can receive emails, it defeats the entire purpose. Just don’t install those apps then? Lol. A browser allows access to most social media anyways, so providing one is counter to its purpose.
Strongly disagree. Email is foundational communication just like text messaging.
Social media is NOT foundational communication.
If I’m expecting an immediate response, an email would be the second to last thing I would do. Emails are different from texts entirely. It’s more akin to sending a letter, it’s even in the name, e”mail”.
Cool in principle, but in practice emails are used as instant verification for all kinds of things. Even if you don’t need email immediately, there are lots of other people who do.
Instant verification for what without already being on a phone? If you’re already on the computer, just use the computers browser and log in to your email? Why are you making this more complicated than reality.
There’s literally no reason to instantly need your email, and if you do, than these phones aren’t meant for you, you need to be connected.
Also, what 2fa does email but not text messaging…?
And an email can wait until you get home, if it’s that important, call, but texts suffice.
A browser allows access to social media, so now you just lost the phones sole purpose, good job.
Not impossible to get by, but a lot more difficult in the modern world. I used a dumb phone for a little while a few years ago and I just ended up carrying a smartphone w/o a SIM to tether when needed bc of how much infrastructure assumes you have a smartphone nowadays (in the US at least). It's infuriating - not impossible, but a lot more difficult than it used to be.
Some feature phones had browsers
I’m aware. Browsers have been in phones long before smartphones.
I hate to break it to you but smart phones have been around since before the Web.
WAP/WML browsers, not web browsers.
Just googled to see if I was misremembering because I definitely browsed the regular web on my Nokia N73. It also came out in 2006, and back in the day it was not called a smartphone.
I would say your statement is factually incorrect.
I’ll say I’m correct on a technicality. 2006 is not “long before smartphones” only a year or so. The N73 is a sort of proto-smartphone, even if the term wasn’t in use yet.
I’m really curious what other metric there is for a smart phone than “accessing the web” and/or “downloading apps”. Thats the barebones definition of smart TVs or any other appliance or equipment, why are phones somehow different?
Why are people trying to define it so specifically? So they can feel better about themselves?
The point where it becomes a general-purpose computing device, I think. Programmability is generally what makes it “smart”, i.e. not having the limitation of predefined “features” which make it a feature phone.
Isn’t a feature phone a “dumb phone”? A phone meant for calling and texting, with preinstalled programs, and that’s it. So yeah, installable apps and a browser would instantly make it a smart phone.
It’s all relative but more or less yes.
Dumb phone has no software features (e.g. Nokia 5110 or so — unless you count the snake game), feature phone has software features but limited to the ones that come with the phone (rarely installable at all), smart phone has actual software aka “apps”