> A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable.
This would completely defeat the point.
There is a range of needs for cables. Some devices have simple needs for power/data transfer/extra functionality, and some devices have more. A $3 USB-powered lamp does not need a cable for gigabit data transfer and 100W charging - this cable would be more expensive than the product. Similarly, new features & performance levels will emerge and we want to be able to use these in new cables backward compatibly.
Given a range of needs, you have two options:
- A single cross-compatible connector, but with a range of capabilities
- Different types of connector for every capability
We used to be in the latter situation, USB-C is an attempt to do the former. Having different capabilities for same-shaped cables is the goal.
Labelling would be great, but standardizing one single spec for all cables would defeat the point.
But the current situation is I can take two devices with a USB C connector, connect them with a USB c cable, and they won’t work. Is that really better?
In almost all cases they will work, just slowly. There's always some power, and almost always some data (power-without-data cables exist, but they're very rare, mostly a specialist security thing).
If the power isn't enough to power a device, that's annoying, but it's strictly better than when we had a unique power cable per-device. We've replaced "carry a charger per device" with "carry one charger for your highest power device, and it can do everything else too". And even with just a low-power cable you can usually trickle-charge overnight or something.
The only optional feature you'll run into that may or may not work at all is monitor support. Would it be better to have a whole different USB-C2 spec which requires display support (and so is significantly more expensive)? If the connector is the same you have the same problem (it's just labelling) and if it's not that sounds like you've just invented display cables which your monitor almost certainly supports today anyway.
You’re somewhat underplaying it - plugging a cheapo random Chinese knock off cable into my MacBook is effectively useless. Plugging a 480Mb cable into a thunderbolt dock is effectively useless.
> The only optional feature you'll run into that may or may not work at all is monitor support.
Between charging, data transfer and monitors we’re now at the three primary uses for USB that may or may not work at their advertised performance depending on what combination of devices you use and what connector you use. And to be clear, trickle charging a high power device is “degraded” in the same way that GitHub was “degraded” yesterday.
Yes I do think a different spec is the right solution - why should the charging port for my electric toothbrush accept a cable that’s plugged into a Nintendo switch dock on the other end? Something like USB 3 MicroB is an example of how a “high featured” device can share with the power delivery.
> you've just invented display cables which your monitor almost certainly supports today anyway.
Yes. This is the worst case scenario: You don't have the required cable.
In an alternative world with no unified connector, you also likely don't have the required cable. The result is the same.
It's just that in this world, the worst case scenario happens a lot less. There is often a fallback when you don't have the required cable and you get some functionality. But, most people most of the time the cable they have does what is needed.
You can still use the cable that came with the device. Are there a lot of manufacturers who are shipping cables that are not sufficient for their device?
And if the complaint is that cables are the same color, can they not be labeled? Everyone who wants different cables should just treat their USB-C cables as different cables. They get everything they want and the people who want the benefits of mixing cables (at the cost of them sometimes not working) can get what they want.
I think you’re technically right, but the point of the connector is to indicate what it will work with. It’s all well and good until you grab one of the white or black cables and put the wrong one bacj.
> they get everything they want
No, we get a bunch of cables which share a connector that pretend they’re interconnectable when they’re not. At a glance, my phone, MacBook and toothbrush cables are identical. I don’t want have to tell my wife or anyone who visits “don’t use the second charger from he left”
Trusted staged publishing helps a lot: you have to independently pwn the workflow _and_ then complete a separate 2FA flow as a maintainer. The workflow never sees any keys that can publish independently.
They are allowed to set caps, I've seen them down to around €5000 per transaction so it's not literally all transfers. Still free to transfer above, just takes more than a few seconds to do so, presumably for fraud/theft protection. Some banks will make that a daily limit, or configurable, there's some flexibility but they're mandated to justify all limits with no arbitrary discrimination against instant transfers.
In practice, obviously most personal payments are well under that margin, so within-EU bank transfers are defacto instant everywhere. Most banking apps I've seen don't even show an 'instant/slow' option any more, it's just all instant.
Spain is historically trying to attract old foreign retirees with money who will spend their retirement savings/pensions there, but probably doesn't want that same group voting unless they really have assimilated. So that set of rules makes sense for their immigration model but is also probably not a place to look to for setting policy if your immigrants are working-age adults (that are coming there to work, not retire early).
If we gatekeep service access to specific implementation attestations, it becomes much harder for new implementations to emerge. It doesn't really matter who controls the process.
In that sense, it's always bad. In this specific scenario for example it directly blocks emergence of alternative Android ROMs and Android-mostly-compatible devices like the various Linux phones.
There may be times where that downside is worthwhile, but it's always a downside, and we should very strongly discourage attestation wherever possible on that basis for the health of both the tech ecosystem and the business market around it.
I think the challenges here exist but the reality is overblown to be honest, the vast majority of banking apps (everything that isn't struck through in that list) work just fine.
Fully agree the concern is discouraging adoption though. I would love to see more of a solution here, it seems like purely anti-competitive behaviour by Android that will block competitors emerging.
It's a paid service, they track data brokers datasets (I assume they just act as a buyer for as many as they can) and then manually request your removal from all of them, and then aggressively follow up and chase it for you. Interesting business model, even if it's annoying that the world means you need it.
You should precede those verbs with "they claim that they".
"Aggressively follow up" is a completely meaningless phrase. It could just mean they put an "angry face" emoji in their email. You might disagree, but courts would likely judge it an irrelevant phrase.
In short: there's No Way to scrub yourself off the web, and no one who wants to abuse information that should remain private will ever respect a take-down request, without the menace of fines and prison.
I mean sure, I'm not intending this to be quoted in a court, honestly I would say all my online comments are irrelevant phrases!
That said - it is their business, they're broadly well reviewed, and they're clearly incentivised to give scrubbing your data out a good go.
More generally, if you're in a jurisdiction with GDPR-like rules (which is a lot of the world nowadays) the brokers themselves have formal policies & tools for removing your data and chasing people manually myself occasionally I've found it quite effective.
You're certainly not going to get anything removed from any three-letter agencies or purely malicious people. Most of the discussion here though is around data brokers, who are generally large serious businesses who will at least follow the letter of the law. You've got pretty good odds of getting your data removed from any non-trivial businesses, if you follow their carefully hidden data collection policy links and then quote your local legislation and their privacy team in a polite but firm (and repetitive) way.
Some scepticism here I see, but personally I think this is spot-on. I've been keen on a dumber phone for a while, but losing whatsapp & maps makes it a non-starter for any real use. This is an excellent middle ground. The aesthetic is cool, and building this on Sailfish but with Android compatibility is awesome. Big fan of the concept.
Phone like this, especially with whatsapp, is something I can imagine giving to my kids once they are older. They would love the design 1000x more than what biggest players bring on the market these days. Maps & whatsapp cover basically 99% of the needs I want them to be covered (contact with optional video & navigation).
Full phone? No thank you, its enough to look around how it ends up.
The skepticism isn't around the concept (for some) - it's the bonkers $500 price tag when you can go get a 5G military grade waterproof flip phone with a very robust removable battery and much more impressive tech/stats for $200.
Exactly. But clearly we - people who are cost conscious about getting their money's worth - aren't the target market for these "niche" devices. Which is sad, as there is a real market for a reasonably priced device like this that many would buy as a "second" phone (and maybe even make it their primary phone). Just look at all the Nokia / HMD kind-of "premium" "feature phones" (calling them "dumb phones" is silly) still sold for around $150 - $250. The only reason that they aren't as "popular" now is because the Symbian OS or KaiOS they use is lacking in many aspects. And HMD (and others) don't understanding the user needs (for example, selling such 4G phones that don't even have the ability to be a hotspot device).
Many countries don't use SMS, they use WhatsApp, for almost everything, from chatting with family and friends, to business contacts, to talking with your bank manager, to medical appointments, to 2FA, and even to transfer money.
That's what prevents most people on those countries from having a dumb phone, and forces even the most illiterate of 90yo great-grandmothers to learn how to navigate around Android or iOS, all the while placing uncountable many calls to their great-grandchildren because they opened up some random app by accident and don't remember how to get back to the only thing that matters: WhatsApp (talking from experience here).
A WhatsApp-capable quasi-dumb-phone would be a godsend for such places, provided it's cheap enough. At $500 this one definitely isn't, not when an ultra-cheap Android smartphone capable of running WhatsApp costs $90. But if this one sells well, cheaper ones may become viable down the line due to economies of scale. I surely hope that happens.
As long as Meta owns WhatsApp, don’t hold your breath.
They operate the service to get your personal data into the hands of their customers (advertisers) so why would they support a dumb client that is designed to be incompatible with their business model
It doesn't have the same business model as the rest of Meta (which by the way, is to get advertisers products in front of users eyeballs, optimized by their personal data. Not to hand said personal data over to advertisers or anybody else, which would be a bit dumb as it's Meta's crown jewels)
Only? It was half your comment. The point is that the amount of "real use" (I think we can all guess at a good-enough definition) of a phone without WhatsApp in a country where it's pervasive is not enough for most people. And what do you mean by "maps exist"? Paper maps?
It specifically mention both Whatsapp and maps as being available, but to me the dealbreaker is blocking browsers.
When I am out, I use the browser a lot, need to find if this is a good restaurant, or a good product to buy, what was actor form the 80's tv show?...
Like I understand why the would not have one preinstalled, but preventing me from installing it??
No way, and then add the pricetag... I do hope it fails just because I don't want people to think that the solution to today's walled gardens is "differently walled gardens".
If that's what you need, you can simply buy a conventional smartphone. Conventional smartphones are available in flip-phone form factors, although I personally consider trying to browse the web from one to be a gigantic pain.
Yeah me too. It felt like it was designed exclusively for me, it ticks all the boxes in what a dumb phone should and shouldn't have in terms of functionality.
I'm perhaps misinterpreting your comment, but from the FAQ:
> Callback includes SMS, WhatsApp, [..]
> Callback includes Pure Maps, a popular Sailfish navigation app, and is compatible with several Android map, navigation, and transport apps, including Uber and Lyft.
> Today, in 2026, as a Spanish resident, I still can't access https://www.womenonweb.org/. Why? Who knows anymore. Fucking money + religion owns our digital spaces now, been for a long time, no one seemingly noticed.
I didn't know about this, so I looked it up: it's because they sell prescription-only abortion medication and ship directly to consumers, where it's legally only available via prescription and medical oversight. Fundamentally they're blocked for ignoring medical regulations. There were some appeals, but the argument is that access to abortion medication is already a well-protected right, so that this is dangerous and unnecessary, and it's not possible to block that while unblocking the rest of their educational resources.
Such a bullshit reason though, the real reason is that the church don't like women deciding over their own bodies, and the church wields real political power in Spain.
Using a VPN, and trying to use that website to "order abortion pills" today to Spain shows this error:
> You live in a country where there is access to safe abortion services. We don't provide services in your country and we therefore are unable to assist you.
You haven't been able to get abortion pills from them for years, yet the same reason for the block remains, even if that's not actually true in practice.
The block is being escalated to UN though, so it's still an ongoing issue, not like nothing is happening, just frustrating to see people complaining about minor censorship when there is so much more important censorship happening all the time.
