Released in the spring of 2017, the Light Phone was shaped like a business card, weighed less than a stack of seven quarters, and felt like a hollow wedge of plastic. But when you pressed the phone’s only button, its tiny keypad lit up in a soft white glow. It was practically ephemeral, and it came packed inside a hardcover book of wistful photos of creeks, clouds, birds, and beaches.
The Light Phone was an object of extreme minimalism. “Going light,” founders Joe Hollier and Kai Tang stressed, was about a conscious uncoupling from our screens, rediscovering the world around us, and creating space for a slower and potentially more meaningful pace of communication. In practice, that meant a stripped-down phone that only made calls — no keyboard, T9 texting, or even a contact list. Adding a contact to speed dial meant firing up a desktop dashboard. Even then, you could only save 10 numbers at a time.
But the phone emerged at a moment of spiking anxiety about tech dependence. Business Insider suggested that the “beautiful credit-card-sized phone just might cure your smartphone addiction” and TechCrunch called Light an “incredibly inspiring company.”
For a phone that did almost nothing, the Light Phone did pretty well. The company more than doubled its $200,000 crowdfunding goal and raised millions from investors like Chinese manufacturing giant Foxconn, which also built the Light Phone 1. Light had a 50,000-person waitlist and shipped 15,000 units — crumbs compared to Apple’s yearly 200 million unit sales — but impressive enough for a phone company born on Kickstarter.
There was just one problem: Light’s marketing material suggested the phone was “designed to be used as little as possible,” and the creators had outdone themselves. In fact, very few people used the thing at all. Because it only worked on 2G networks, service was patchy; without texting, the Light Phone forced people to make calls, a tough sell in our era of phone anxiety. “The first Light Phone put aesthetics over literally everything,” Hollier later told me. More than anything, customers were buying an ethos.
The hard numbers didn’t add up either: the company couldn’t turn a profit even at $150 per phone, which is at least twice the price of a respectable feature phone.
Hollier and Tang eventually came to terms with the Light Phone’s drawbacks. Even they stopped using it. After one week on a strict Light Phone regimen, Hollier said he had missed out on too many messages and opportunities to connect with friends. “That was a kind of hard thing for me to reckon with,” he said. On their blog, the Light team confessed that “the simplicity that we initially loved became a confusing limitation.”
their challenge was relatively simple: build a minimalist phone someone might actually use
Still, the phone had sparked enough enthusiasm from the minimalist community that the team began exploring a follow-up device. In January 2018, they posted a promo video for the Light Phone 2, a device that would adhere to the same bare-bones aesthetics and philosophy as the original. But it would also, you know, do stuff, like save numbers, text and maybe even call a car, play music, and give directions. These would be “tools and not feeds,” that were part of “a phone that actually respects you.”
“The original Light Phone was only intended to be used as a casual ‘second phone,’” they wrote in a public manifesto a few months later. “The Light Phone 2, however, is designed with the intention of being a fully functioning simple phone, whether it’s your ‘only’ phone or ‘second’ phone.”
In March 2018, they launched an Indiegogo campaign for the Light Phone 2. Internally, they had floated an ambitious name for the project — “The Only Phone” — but their challenge was relatively simple: build a minimalist phone someone might actually use.
I first reached out to the Light team in the spring of 2018, and for the next year and a half, I followed Tang and Hollier as they brought the Light Phone 2 to life, chasing the dream of the ultimate minimalist phone.
The Light company occupies a six-cubicle office in New Lab, a cavernous Brooklyn co-working space that’s home to over 100 early-stage startups building everything from 3D-printed rocket engines to personal tracking devices and vertical farms.
That’s where I found Hollier and Tang in June 2018. By then, the Light Phone 2 campaign had more than doubled its reach goal of $1.5 million. Indiegogo VP of marketing Natasha Raja told me it was in the top 10 percent of all campaigns in terms of funds raised. Over the course of the next year, the Light team would go on to attract $3 million more from investors and VCs, including Lyft co-founder and president John Zimmer.
Hollier and Tang were anxious to make progress. It had been three months since the crowdfunding push, and they had less than a year until the phone’s scheduled ship date of April 2019. And all they had to show me were sketches, a few plastic models, and some survey results.
The survey, sent out to Light backers, was focused on a straightforward question: What features would you like to see on the Light Phone 2? What they were really asking, though, was thornier: How minimalist should a minimalist phone be?
In a 2017 Wired story about the futility of minimalist devices, David Pierce identified it as the “this one thing” problem. Every customer has just “one thing” they absolutely need to have their minimalist phone do in order for it to replace their current device. But everyone’s “one thing” is different. In my 2018 review of the Light Phone 1, my “one thing” was texting. If only it texted, I said, the Light Phone would be an ideal minimalist device for me.
Some Light Phone 2 survey respondents indicated that their “one things” were basic tools like directions, maps, or a notes app. But others had maximalist requests: emojis, podcasts, encrypted messaging, additional micro SD slots, even WhatsApp and a Facebook app. The Light team had to tread a fine line.
cram in a dozen “one things,” and you have an iPhone; exclude too many, and you’re back at the Light Phone 1
And Hollier was adamant about not repeating the mistakes of the first device. “Obviously, I love things that are conceptual and beautiful, but it has to work,” Hollier said.
In July and August, Hollier and Tang made slow but steady progress on manufacturing, traveling to China and Taiwan, and choosing a factory. Picking the right factory is a critical decision for a small gadget maker: factories often over-promise their capabilities to secure a lucrative contract, only to underdeliver later on. That kind of snafu will bankrupt a young company.
“That’s the nightmare,” Hollier told me, sitting in their office.
“It’s going to kill you,” Tang nodded.
Then there was the work of managing backer expectations. By its nature, crowdfunding incentivizes founders to hype their projects. “Crowdfunding makes you pitch the dream,” Hollier told me when we spoke in the fall. “And then when you start building it, you’re basically going backwards a bunch of steps to make it real.”
As a startup founder, having to appease a few VCs and investors is challenging, but meeting the demands of thousands of backers can be crushing. Meanwhile, backers face the very real risk of founders stalling indefinitely and one day vanishing into thin air.
Indiegogo’s Raja says that’s why her team encourages maximum communication between project owners and backers. Hollier embraced transparency, doggedly responding to practically every one of the 2,000 queries and suggestions left on their crowdfunding page.
In a post titled “Joe Hollier is the most patient person on the planet” on the r/lightphone subreddit, one observer wrote, “Have been reading the indiegogo comments for the light phone 2 over the last few months and if I had to answer the same 6 questions over and over I would lose the fucking plot. Even Buddha would have lost his shit by now.”
Hollier also published monthly updates to the Indiegogo page, detailing the team’s progress. Most of these were met with appreciation and enthusiasm. Others, less so.
They had sold the dream and stumbled on the path back to reality
In September 2018, the team shared pictures of the most recent prototype — and it was the backers who lost their shit. In the phone’s original renderings, the Light Phone 2 looked identical to the Light Phone 1 but with a clean, snappy keyboard. The screen blended perfectly with the body of the phone, giving it the same seamless quality as the original device.
But in the September update photos, the E Ink screen didn’t match the color of the casing; instead, the whole thing looked clunky and cheap. There were other disappointments, too: in their manifesto, Light promised an aluminum casing and a USB-C port. But now, the phone had a plastic case and used Micro USB. And the original’s flat silhouette had been replaced with a hunched back in order to fit a larger battery.
“I understand that the look form promo video and pictures are not to be expected in final version of the product,” wrote one backer, “but this looks like something totally different.” Dozens asked for refunds.
A few days after the September post, I asked Hollier if he was over-communicating. They had sold the dream and stumbled on the path back to reality.
“It’s a balance,” he said. “This time around, I wanted to share much more of the process. But I’m reminded of just how tricky that is. These are customers with high expectations — which I love — and they’re holding us to that.”
In January 2019, the Light team announced they were pushing back their ship date as they kept honing the design. “We are more eager than ever for all of us to begin using the Light Phone 2 and this change in glass really takes us much closer to the initial vision,” they wrote in their monthly update. “Thank you for your continued support and patience with us through this process :)”
The launch was pushed to mid-summer, then early fall, costing a few more Light backers. “I am tired of waiting. Please let me know how I refund this,“ one backer wrote on their Indiegogo page, just a month out from launch.
In June 2019, one year after my first visit, I came back to the Light office. The phone was in its final development stages, and I wanted to know whether Tang and Hollier were happy with how it had turned out.
Hollier and Tang are excited about the phone’s potential, but they’re also forthright with its shortcomings
Though Tang cut his teeth working on the Motorola Razr, Hollier had no technical experience before starting Light. Hollier, who is tall and lanky with a sheet of long red hair, grew up in New Jersey skateboarding, shooting videos, and shooting videos of people skateboarding. In 2014, he found his way to 30 Weeks, a design and technology incubator sponsored by Google, where he met Tang.
A number of people on the Light Phone team described Hollier to me as the embodiment of the project’s ethos. “If there was a spirit animal for the Light phone, it’s Joe,” said Hugh Francis of Sanctuary Computer, the design firm Light had hired to do software development. Hollier shot all of the photos in the Light Phone 1 book and made every accompanying video. It’s his handwriting that appears on the phone’s packaging. On the inside of his right arm, he has a tattoo that reads “let’s be human beings.”
In the spring of 2019, Hollier stashed his iPhone SE into his car’s glove compartment and switched over entirely to the Light Phone 2. It was easier for him than it might have been for most people. Hollier is the type who revels in the frictions of minimalism: when he wants to share a picture, he sends it over email. Because the current Light Phone doesn’t support ride-share, he walks. In his eyes, the Light Phone 2 is a success.
The Light Phone 2, which will retail for $350, measures less than four inches in length, weighs 78 grams, and comes in two colors (black and light gray). It has a 2.84-inch E Ink touch display, Bluetooth capabilities, and a battery that supports two hours of talk time and 13 days standby. It has a Micro USB port, works with every major network apart from Sprint, and features hot spot and tethering capabilities. The team plans on producing 20,000 units. At launch, the phone will only have three “tools”: calls, texting, and an alarm. Ride-share, directions, and music tools are in the works. The screen is not perfectly seamless, but it looks very good.
Hollier and Tang are excited about the phone’s potential, but they’re also forthright with its shortcomings. When I told them that even $250 was a lot for what amounted to a feature phone, they agreed but said that manufacturing at their scale was unavoidably expensive: they’d spent a couple million dollars on their hardware team in China and a couple million more on software development. That’s pocket lint to a major phone maker, but it’s a large portion of the funds Light had available.
To me, it was still unclear whether Light had built a phone someone would want to use. We might say we want to kick our tech addictions, but who among us is ready to shell out $350 for a gadget that does so little?
The previous summer, I asked Hollier whether minimalist phones are a bit like gym memberships and self-help books — aspirational purchases that signal an effort to be someone better than who we are. We don’t actually want a minimalist phone; we just want to want one.
“The probability of that is way higher than you might think,” he said after considering the question. “The Light Phone is not a solution. It takes a lot of effort on the part of the user to really overcome these things.”
For two weeks, I tried to find someone who really did want a Light Phone 2. Everyone I showed it to loved the idea and the design. But after a few minutes of poking around on the phone, their enthusiasm often faded.
I had dinner at the home of an architect who wears weird hats, grows his own psychedelic drugs, and enjoys woodworking — the type of Burning Man-esque character who might be interested in a minimalist device. But he’s a practical type, too, and he balked at the price tag.
I sent a picture of the phone to my cousin who works in the music industry. “Need,” he texted back. “I am down to try and battle my phone addiction.” But when he saw it in person, he was noticeably less down. “I wish it had a keyboard,” he said. “I wish it cost $100.”
it’s limiting in ways you may not even expect
I showed it to my partner, who called me a snob. She had a point: in 2019, you can purchase a respectable smartphone for less than $200. So choosing to spend as much, if not more, on a device that does much less can seem ridiculous or pretentious.
The only promising response I got was from a friend who works for New York City Parks, a crunchy character who brews his own kombucha, deleted his Instagram account, and dresses as if he’s just stepped off a hiking trail. He liked the phone and said that if it came prepackaged alongside his smartphone, he could see himself using it in the field.
They were all valid criticisms. Still, over the two weeks I spent with the device, I couldn’t help but come around to liking the Light Phone 2.
Sure, it’s tricky to use. When I gave the phone to a Gen Zer, I watched her struggle with the stripped-down OS, looking for a home screen that doesn’t exist. When the dial pad popped up, she thought she’d accidentally locked herself out.
And yes, it’s limiting in ways you may not even expect. The phone has a tiny keyboard and no autocorrect, so my texts were full of typos. The E Ink screen isn’t molasses-slow, but there’s enough delay to make you reconsider corrections. “Whete u,” I texted a friend one night. When he asked me what I was doing in response, I told him I was “Fonishing din.”
Still, there was something liberating about visiting the library on a Saturday afternoon or going for a bike ride and leaving my iPhone behind. After a while, I got the hang of the OS, and the phone became a reliable tether to the wider world if I needed it. Over time, my neurotic impulse to check for notifications began to wane. Going Light didn’t transform me, but it was refreshing to develop a different relationship with the device in my pocket.
Before the smartphone era, phones were launched on the idea that different communities had individual needs. As a result, some of these phones were weird as hell, and many were outright bad: the Nokia 7600, launched in 2003, was shaped like a box cutter crossed with a tape measure, and the 2002 Motorola V70 looked like an extraterrestrial baby rattle. They weren’t for everyone, but they offered unique experiences, tailored to their owners. The Light Phone 2, in a lot of ways, is banking on the same premise: our phones don’t have to be uniform slabs of bezel-less glass.
There may not be a mass market for minimalist phones — they’re expensive, they’re superfluous, they’re extra — but there could be niche markets for the Light Phone: well-to-do campers, weekend warriors, the hyper-wired looking for relief. That could also include, as one friend put it, “people who shouldn’t be trusted with smartphones”: children, old people, and bad teens.
The Light Phone 2, which begins shipping to backers today, comes packaged inside a recycled cardboard box. An inscription in the packaging — written in Hollier’s handwriting — reads, “Appreciate your time, Life is right now.”
The back of the box has another inscription, which also functions as the company’s tagline: “a phone for humans.” For Hollier and Tang, the question now lingers — for how many?
Vox Media has affiliate partnerships. These do not influence editorial content, though Vox Media may earn commissions for products purchased via affiliate links. For more information, see our ethics policy.
]]>Though we rarely give them much thought, batteries — specifically lithium-ion batteries — enable modern life. They run our smartphones, yes, but they also power our Bluetooth speakers, toothbrushes, satellites, and pacemakers. In Australia, a partnership with Tesla will equip 50,000 homes with solar panels and battery packs, transforming them into a single “virtual power plant” capable of storing 250MW. Increasingly, batteries move us: from electric cars to pedal-assist bikes, scooters, trains, planes, and even boats. By 2025, it’s estimated that lithium-ion batteries will become a $94 billion global market.
Yet, genuine breakthroughs in battery technology are few and far between. The lithium-ion batteries we use today are iterations of a technology developed almost 40 years ago and commercialized by Sony back in 1991. Year over year, we squeeze more juice out of the pack, but a true successor remains just out of reach.
It’s not for lack of trying, either. Over the last three decades, engineers and researchers in South Korea, China, Japan, the United States, and Europe have scrambled to develop safe, light, and powerful batteries that will let you charge your phone as often as you do your laundry. The promise of a so-called “super battery” is enticing: electric cars that travel many hundreds of miles on a single charge and massive battery banks that will let us effectively gather and store enough restorable energy to make fossil fuels obsolete.
Journalist and Axios Future Editor Steve LeVine set out to document what he termed “the Great Battery War” in his 2015 book The Powerhouse: Inside the Invention of a Battery to Save the World. His takeaway was sobering: the stakes of the battery war are sky-high, and the United States is being lapped by its competitors. The Verge sat down with LeVine to discuss how the United States lost its lead, how Elon Musk forced the world’s biggest car companies to go electric, and why the super battery is still nowhere in sight.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
You teach about energy security at Georgetown University. What made you turn your attention to the so-called battery race?
The battery race was a global decision made by big players in developed countries. Batteries and electric cars were a new geopolitical and economic playground. All these countries want to have some part in the race. And in two or three cases, they want to win. My reporting space at that time was the geopolitics of energy: how energy — oil, gas — impact geopolitics and the power and wealth among countries. Now, I could see a whole different space opening up: batteries and geopolitics.
I Googled around to see who was in the space. I plugged in “batteries” and worked my way down: Brazil, Australia, South Africa. I counted 20 countries, and all of them had ambitions to capture at least a piece of the battery space — or in the case of China and the United States, to own the space.
“Electric cars were a new geopolitical and economic playground.”
What was driving that sort of global investment?
It was a convergence of things. The big one was the financial crash. The global economy and many local economies had crumbled, and that happened after the real estate crash and the dot-com crash. Whole countries had their whole spirit beaten out of them. How are we going to claw our way back?
Being the first country to unlock the super battery could have a revolutionary impact on that economy.
Huge difference: it’ll change economies. Economies that have thrived off of the petroleum age won’t be thriving anymore. Those that are involved in the supply chain of batteries and the technologies they enable, that’s where the wealth will flow. The distribution of wealth and power could change.
You framed your book as an arms race between the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Europeans, and Americans. Three years after publishing your book, who’s winning that race?
The number one leaders are the South Koreans. I think people don’t know that. Just take Samsung and LG. They bettered the Japanese in terms of knowing how to manufacture batteries.
“The South Koreans have, every year, pulled more energy out of the batteries and made them cheaper.”
The super battery had not been invented. What’s happened is that, over the last decade, the cost and the energy efficiency in batteries have improved through iteration in the manufacturing process. The South Koreans have, every year, pulled more energy out of the batteries and made them cheaper. This has led to what we’re looking at now: we’re on the cusp of electric cars being commercially affordable and attractive. Now, whether people buy them in mass quantities, we don’t know that yet. But the South Koreans have pulled this off, and they’ve done this because they’re the best in the world at manufacturing batteries at scale.
The Chinese are learning from them. South Koreans are, just like us, building factories in China. And the Japanese are very good. Panasonic — Tesla’s battery maker — is a Japanese company. They’re absolutely superb.
The US is in the game — not because it’s manufacturing the batteries, but because it’s the inventor of most of the technology that’s out there. The battery that’s in everyone’s smartphone was invented by John Goodenough, an American, 95 years old, who still works at the University of Texas at Austin. And then the battery that’s in most electric cars was invented by Mike Thackeray at Argonne National Laboratory. So we were ahead on the invention, but we’re not making them at that scale. Elon Musk, with his Gigafactory, looks like he is changing that.
If the United States led the way in terms of developing the technology, how’d we fall so far behind?
Lack of vision. So we did not then have the vision to identify this as an industry of the future and set out to capture it the way the Japanese did. This is a completely different topic, but we’re now making the same mistake with AI.
This is where Musk’s utility is. Musk has made a strategic bet: “I’m going to own electric cars.” If you’re the United States, thank goodness he did that.
“Musk is the essential man.”
Musk faces a substantial amount of criticism for his big promises, his failures, and his public persona. But you’re saying Musk was instrumental in also kickstarting American investment into battery technology?
He’s the essential man. Even as technologically innovative as the Germans are and as quick to act as the Japanese are, they would not have jumped into large-scale commercial battery development if two things had not happened: Musk dove in and showed that his Roadster really got people’s attention — both for the quality and for its popularity.
Then there’s the iPhone. The iPhone surprised everyone. No one would’ve said in 2006 that people would pay $750 for a phone. And, of course, the rest is history. What were these other car companies thinking of when they looked at Elon Musk and then jumped into the into the technological race? They were afraid that Musk was going to create an iPhone moment, and they were going to end up like Kodak. In other words, you know, being turned into relics of it in the dustbin of corporate history. That is not being melodramatic. That’s the hard and fast truth.
Musk triggered paranoia in major carmakers’ corporate boards. That’s why all of them have jumped in with both feet. Detroit, the Germans, and less so the Japanese; the Japanese have jumped in, but they’re conflicted about which technology they’re going for. Absent the Roadster and then the model S, the industry wouldn’t be in the place it is now. Despite all of Musk’s rough edges that we’ve seen over the last years — his exaggerations, his failures, and now being the subject of an FCC investigation because of his tweet — he is still that essential man.
Every few months, it seems as if engineers and scientists are announcing that there’s been a breakthrough either in the development of a solid state battery, one that can hold a remarkable amount of charge, or one that’s cobalt-free. What are the chances we actually see a super battery happening in the near future?
What does “near future” mean?
Within the next five years.
What do you mean by “happening”?
Entering the market.
“Practically speaking, the breakthroughs haven’t happened.”
Zero chance. Just practically speaking, the breakthroughs haven’t happened. Solid state, silicon anode, or metallic lithium anode batteries — these are possibilities. But in those three areas, we don’t have any of the breakthroughs. Let’s say that the breakthrough happened today, then you still have to scale it out, and get the manufacturing process down, and get factories, and get those scaled up. That arc is longer than five years. Even if the super battery were made today, you would not have the actual commercial battery on the market in five years.
And yet we still read claims from scientists who have made breakthroughs. In fact, John Goodenough, the inventor of the lithium-ion battery, recently announced that he’d developed a revolutionary new battery.
He has something interesting. There are interesting claimed advances that are still at the bench level. It has all of those parameters: costs, distance, safety, and speed of charge. And so he figured it out on the safety front.
At Quartz, there was a story about a claimed breakthrough in a metallic lithium anode. This is the Holy Grail. I’m not getting any confirmation that that’s a breakthrough. I’m troubled by the fact that there’s no confirmation, that only one outside researcher has been allowed to look at it, and that person would not go on the record validating it.
What I’m saying is that when you get the really serious battery guys over a beer and ask them, off the record, “Tell me the truth. Has anyone you know in any of the formulation had a breakthrough?” The answer is “No.” No one even has one on the horizon.
Everyone is working very hard. I’m a believer. There are so many people in so many countries, and the stakes are so high to resolve this problem that someone will break through. And I also think it’s not going to be 10 years. It’ll happen, and then it will take some time for that to get into the commercial market.
“When it happens, it will have a fundamental change in everybody’s lives.”
You mean less than that or more?
I think less than that.
And the development of that battery could fundamentally change our lives.
If you have solid state figured and it’s safe and you get energetic oomph from the new anode, yes it will be transformative. It will be economically, environmentally, and could be geopolitically transformative.
The quest to make a super battery is not going to go away. People should watch this space. When it happens, it will have a fundamental change in everybody’s lives.
]]>On May 29th, 2009, Michelle Dugan and her family began the 600-mile trip from El Centro, California to the Bay Area, where she was set to attend her college orientation. They left late Friday evening, driving through the dusty Imperial Valley landscape and its endless fields of onions, spinach, and alfalfa. Then on to Highway 86, past the desolate shores of the Salton Sea, toward Michelle’s grandmother’s home in nearby Coachella, where they would spend the night before the next day’s long drive.
But at around 9PM, Michelle’s mother received a call: Michelle’s younger sister, Marie, was suffering a severe asthma attack back home and had been rushed to the emergency room. Michelle’s mother hurried back to the hospital, leaving Michelle at her grandmother’s and telling her not to worry.
It’s unclear what triggered Marie’s episode that day, but it was so severe that the nebulizer she used to inhale medication — sometimes five times a day — had no effect. Her airway constricted until she was no longer able to breathe and, choking on her saliva, she lost consciousness. Marie made it to the hospital with a faint pulse, but efforts to deliver CPR failed. Just after 11:30PM, Michelle received the call that Marie had died. She left for El Centro immediately. The drive back, she says, was the longest hour and a half of her life.
Michelle was shocked by her sister’s death — between the two of them, Marie was supposed to be the healthy one. It was Michelle who had been hospitalized for asthma since she was an infant. “Lung infections, bronchitis — everything,” she says. “You name it, I’ve had it.” Though she’s only 27, she’s been told she has the lungs of an 80-year-old; doctors have talked about listing her for a lung transplant.
Asthma in Imperial County is rampant. More children are admitted to the emergency room here for asthma-related cases than anywhere else in the state; almost 1 in 5 children suffer from the condition. There’s a long list of reasons why the county is home to such staggering rates of asthma: the fine layer of dust that coats nearly every surface; the gentle mist of pesticide sprayed across acres of produce; the black towers of soot emanating from crop burns; emissions from cars stalled at the border; and fumes from the Mexican maquiladoras wafting over the border. Kicked up by the strong desert winds, microscopic particles from each of these sources fill the air.
There’s another source of pollution in the valley that poses a major risk, though it’s only starting to make itself felt: the Salton Sea. An enormous blue void at the north end of the Imperial Valley, the Salton Sea once attracted more visitors than Yosemite. But California’s largest lake is now mostly forgotten, and those who know of it don’t have flattering things to say: they’ll tell you about vast beaches where the sand is made of fish bones; about eerie, half-abandoned Mad Max-esque communities; and most of all, its noxious emissions. In 2012, the Salton Sea burped up a cloud of sulfurous odor so thick that residents in Los Angeles 150 miles away were hit by the nauseating smell of rotten eggs.
Though it’s been shrinking for decades, on January 1st, 2018, the Salton Sea entered a nosedive. Thanks to a water transfer agreement with San Diego, 40 percent less water will now flow into the sea. It will recede dramatically, and its already shallow surface level will drop 20 feet. By 2045, its waters will be five times as salty as the Pacific Ocean, killing whatever fish still live there and scattering the birds that feed on them.
Though we often think of lakes as permanent landmarks, global warming, irrigation, and our constant thirst threaten these resources around the world. Terminal lakes like the Salton Sea, bodies of water that have no natural drain, are particularly vulnerable. Iran’s Lake Urmia — once the largest body of water in the Middle East — has shrunk by almost 90 percent over the last 30 years; Africa’s Lake Chad is also 90 percent smaller than it was in the 1960s; and Kazakhstan’s Aral Sea, once the fourth largest salt lake in the world, has practically been wiped off the map.
When these lakes evaporate, they can upend industries and erase surrounding communities. For residents near the Salton Sea, the most pressing problem is the threat of toxic dust. The receding Salton Sea will reveal at least 75 square miles of playa, the lake bed that the water once hid. When that soil dries, it will begin to emit dust laced with industrial runoff from the surrounding farms: up to 100 tons of dust could blow off the playa daily. If it isn’t captured, that dust will push the area’s asthma crisis from bad to dire. The Salton Sea is a dust bomb that has already begun going off.
Marie’s death shifted the course of Michelle’s life. She never made it to the Bay Area and today she lives in Coachella, where her day-to-day is constrained by the limitations of her asthma: she uses a nebulizer three times a day, and straps on a vibrating vest to shake the mucus from her lungs every morning and night. She spends as little time outside as possible, moving quickly between her home, car, and office. She’s terrified of leaving her two children behind. In turn, they are vigilant about her condition. Her daughter, who is named after Marie, runs to start the nebulizer the moment she sees her mother is out of breath. “For a six-year-old to do that, it’s really heartbreaking.”
Michelle says she knows the sea is a threat to her, and everyone in her community. When the hot desert wind blows through the valley, through the date palms and up into Coachella, the sea’s stench is undeniable. “It smells like death,” she says.
Randy Brown became the first person to walk the perimeter of the Salton Sea after deciding that hiking through Death Valley wasn’t enough of a challenge. “Anybody can walk across Death Valley in the summer,” he tells me. The Salton Sea was another matter: a Death Valley walker had attempted something similar in 2005, but settled for walking the nearby highway. And for good reason.
Temperatures around the Salton Sea can climb to over 120 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer — in 1902, the nearby town of Volcano set an all-time US heat record for the month of June: 129. Humidity from the evaporating sea can make the air feel closer to 150 degrees. The earth here is gassy and, combined with the massive bacterial colonies that live in the water, can create a suffocating potpourri.
The sea’s northern shore is covered in deep banks of dead barnacle shells and pulverized fish carcasses. “The best I can describe it as is like trying to walk through snow,” Brown says. Other parts of the shore are covered in mud and silt so fine it resembles quicksand. Brown remembers his dad telling him stories of duck hunters dying here of exposure, sinking deeper into the mud as they struggled to pull themselves out.
Once, the Salton Sea was an oasis. It formed in 1905, when flood waters breached a nearby canal, sending the entire volume of the Colorado River into what was then a dry, ancient lake bed called the Salton Sink. It took two years to patch the break; in that time, a lake almost twice the size of Lake Tahoe had sprung to life. By the middle of the 20th century, developers had recast the accident as a miracle, dubbing the area “the Salton Riviera.” Palm trees were planted and marinas were built; President Eisenhower shot a round at the Salton City Golf Course and the Beach Boys docked their boat at the North Shore Beach and Yacht Club. Completing the atomic era fantasy, dozens of pink flamingos took up residence at the sea — escapees from the San Diego Zoo or live attractions brought in by a nightclub owner, depending on who you ask.
Randy Brown was familiar with the sea from childhood. Growing up in the ‘70s, he and his family would make the 150-mile trek from Monrovia, California to the Salton Sea every summer weekend. The area was still booming then. “If we didn’t get there Friday night or early Friday afternoon, there would be no room at the beach,” he says. Stocked fish populations had exploded, and fishermen spent days angling for Gulf croaker, tilapia, and orangemouth corvina, a prized game fish that can grow to over 30 pounds. “We would come home with 80–100 fish every weekend,” Brown recalls.
Those fish attracted enormous flocks of ducks, grebes, and even bald eagles; 450 different bird species and subspecies have been spotted here. Eighty percent of the continental population of American white pelicans wintered at the sea, grateful to find refuge in a state that was in the process of ruthlessly paving over its wetlands.
A 1960s promotional video for the Salton Sea.
But by the end of the ‘70s, it was apparent that something was deeply wrong. “One year we went and the beaches were covered in dead fish — it was a real oddity,” Brown says. Then it happened again the next year. Two freak tropical storms in the late ‘70s flooded the area, washing away investments that never returned.
Like thousands of others, the Browns stopped coming, though Randy says that had less to do with the conditions at the sea: as a teenager, he “discovered girls, partying, and alcohol,” and lost interest in family vacations. His parents moved away into California’s high desert.
By the ‘80s and ‘90s, the sea was trapped in an intense cycle of ecological collapse. With only the rare desert rainstorm and salty, nutrient-rich farm runoff to feed it, the seawater grew more saline by the year. Large algae blooms starved the water of oxygen, causing fish to drown. Their decomposing bodies fed more algae, kickstarting the cycle all over again. In the summer of 1999, almost 8 million tilapia died in a single day, their silvery corpses spread along the shore in a band that measured three miles wide and 10 miles long.
“They stood still while gulls tore into their flesh and began eating them on the spot.”
In turn, the birds that relied on these fish suffered from botulism and other diseases. Just in 1996, 15–20 percent of the Western population of white pelicans died here. Reporting for the Smithsonian that year, Robert H. Boyle wrote that 150,000 eared grebes had also died, with the surviving population “so disoriented that they stood still while gulls tore into their flesh and began eating them on the spot.”
As the sea decayed, so did vacation communities like Salton City, Desert Shores, and Bombay Beach. A 2004 documentary about the Salton Sea, narrated by John Waters, captured a cross-section of the residents who now populated these towns: retirees clinging to the dreams they’d bought into, refugees from Los Angeles looking for a cheaper existence away from urban violence, and offbeat recluses who were fond of the sea’s latest incarnation. “It’s the greatest sewer the world has ever seen,“ said one resident. “Leave it that way.”
In 2003, the Imperial Valley and San Diego signed the largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer agreement in US history. The Valley would now be selling much of its water to thirsty communities along the California coast, at a handsome profit. That meant less water going to farms, and less runoff flowing into the sea. The agreement included an easement period which expired at the start of 2018. It was thought that 15 years would be more than enough time to develop a solution for the sea, and the dust beneath it. But no solution came.
An ambitious 2007 proposal to build a healthy lake inside of the dying lake was shelved because of its $8.9 billion price tag. The state balked at the cost of two more proposals in 2015, costing $3.1 billion and $1 billion, respectively. More creative proposals to desalinate the sea or even pipe water from the Pacific Ocean or Mexico’s Sea of Cortez have gone nowhere.
“It was not quite dead, but it was dying.”
In 2014, Randy Brown traveled to the Salton Sea for the first time in decades. Instinctually, he returned to the beach where he’d spent so much of his childhood. He was taken aback by the sight. “It was not quite dead, but it was dying,” he says. Around the perimeter of the sea, establishments had been burned out, left vacant, or wiped from the landscape as if they’d never existed. Because of the high salinity, the fish populations had begun to collapse — it’s rumored the last corvina was caught here sometime in the mid-2000s — and fewer birds were coming, too. One flamingo still remained, though she would disappear soon after. The sea had receded 100 yards from where he remembered it.
Over the course of six days in June 2015, Brown completed the 116-mile walk, becoming the first person to successfully circumnavigate the shore on foot. When I asked him what stunned him most about the experience, Brown kept coming back to the receding shoreline.
On one of his first training walks in 2014, he came across a speedboat halfway out of the water. It was black and orange, and emblazoned with the name “Godzilla.” He liked it so much he took a picture of it. As he did the final walk one year later, he passed Godzilla again and took another photo. But now, the boat was 50 yards from the water’s edge. In between was nothing but soft, dusty playa.
When the wind blows in the Imperial Valley, a faint haze of dust rises from the earth. You can taste it on your tongue. Harder gusts summon clouds that shroud the sun, blinding drivers and forcing residents indoors. The dust kicked up by 65 mph winds this April delayed camping at the Coachella music festival for days. The air in Imperial County is some of the worst in the country, a dense blend of ozone and particulate matter. In 2015, the air here failed to meet California’s daily safety standards for more than a third of the year.
You only need to spend a few days in the Imperial Valley to see signs of the asthma epidemic. Many children are born asthmatic here; a recent study found that 30 percent of parents at a Calipatria elementary school said their children had been diagnosed with the condition. Three elderly women standing in front of their home in the town told me that even healthy children under the age of one should remain indoors. Cindy Aguilera, who’s lived in El Centro for 11 years, has six children ranging from ages nine to 18, all of whom have asthma. Her nine-year-old has been hospitalized over 100 times, once for 15 days. Humberto Lugo, who works for a nonprofit that focuses on economic and environmental justice called Comite Civico Del Valle (CCV), says that his 10-year-old son goes to baseball practice with a glove in one hand and an inhaler in the other. “It’s a way of life here.”
These communities have tried to adapt to the air pollution. The Respira Sano program, a joint effort between CCV and San Diego State University, sends health workers on home visits to consult families on how to best protect themselves. If you live by a crop field — as many here do — windows and doors should be kept shut, especially when the spraying starts. Parked cars should have their windows closed to keep particulate from settling in the upholstery. Even dogs and cats need to be kept inside to keep their fur from soaking up pollutants.
Above all, it’s important to minimize how much time children spend outside on bad days. CCV’s Lugo and his colleague Esther Bejarano drove me out to Meadows Union Elementary school, which takes part in the nonprofit’s School Flag Program. Meadows sits on the outskirts of El Centro, and is boxed in by three fields and a highway. Bejarano went to school here, and she says she and her sister would dance in the spray of crop dusters, pretending it was fairy dust. (Though she is asthma-free, Bejarano’s two sons have asthma, as do her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and two nephews.)
Schools then raise green, yellow, orange, or red flags
Using a network of 40 monitors developed by CCV and dispersed through the Valley, the school can see real-time readings on air quality throughout the region. Depending on conditions, schools then raise green, yellow, orange, or red flags. If a red flag is up, teachers and school administrators know to keep kids indoors. The school’s janitor told me that the number of orange and red days has gone up in recent years.
But educational programs like these are stopgap solutions — knowing risks doesn’t protect you from them. Saima Khan is a pediatrician and the associate medical director at Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo, a clinic for families with low incomes. She briefly left the Imperial Valley to treat patients in a private clinic in upscale Rancho Cucamonga just outside Los Angeles, but eventually came back, she says, because she felt a responsibility to attend to a population in greater need. That decision has come at a cost.
Both of Khan’s daughters have developed asthma and six years ago, Khan was diagnosed with it herself. She has a 15-month-old child, who she says is fine for now, though she pays close attention to his breathing. Her husband wants to leave the area; he has recently developed severe allergies and Khan says she can hear him wheezing. When I ask whether she feels the pressure to leave, she tells me she’s torn. “Why are you still here and making us all sick?” her family asks her.
The option of leaving is a luxury few here can afford. One in four live in poverty in the Imperial Valley. As demand for housing in California continues to outstrip supply, middle and lower-income families are forced to move to less hospitable corners of the state. Many of the people I spoke with expressed a desire to leave, but almost none had the means of doing so.
I met Carolina Villa, another asthma patient in the Valley, in front of her old high school. Holtville High also participates in the School Flag Program, and on the day of my visit, I could see a green rectangle hoisted high up the flagpole. Villa tells me she was a former track star, and once ran a 5:54 mile before asthma and the general stresses of age slowed her down. “The reality of it is,” Villa says, “most people can’t afford to move out of where they live.” Leaving behind your community, and family, is hard. So instead, they learn to make do. “Kind of like those chameleons that change colors.”
But ocean breezes help her asthma, and Villa says she’d like to live by the water one day. “I think about buying property by the beach,” she says with a raspy laugh. “Right by the Salton Sea. It’s the only beach I can afford.”
Dry lake beds are some of the largest sources of dust on the planet. It’s estimated that every year, the Sahara Desert exhales 28 million tons of nutrient-rich dust that travels across the Atlantic Ocean to fertilize the Amazon rainforest. That dust migration creates plumes so large they can be seen from space. But half of that dust comes from less than 0.5 percent of the Sahara — the dusty lake bed of what was once Lake Chad.
No matter what it’s made of, particulate matter poses a hazard to those with respiratory problems. But when it’s laced with a century’s worth of fertilizers and pesticides, as it is on the playa of the Salton Sea, it’s more dangerous. There is simply no way to make this dust safe. The best thing to do is keep it on the ground — or better yet, underwater. As drying lakes generate new and problematic dust sources, dust control has become a big industry.
From the Salton Sea, I drove 300 miles through California’s high deserts to the edge of the Eastern Sierra mountains, home to the largest dust mitigation project in the world. On the standard Google Maps view, Owens Lake appears as a large, baby-blue body of water. Switch to satellite view, though, and you’ll see Owens Lake for what it really is: a discolored scab left behind by a lake that no longer exists.
Owens Lake was made famous by the story of its plunder: in the early 20th century, Los Angeles piped its water south to slake the thirst of its growing metropolis. The draining of Owens Lake crippled the surrounding communities, but it was nothing compared to the calamity that followed. Once the water left, dust rose from the lake bed at staggering volumes, with thick walls of soot traveling up Owens Valley for up to 60 miles. Residents hid indoors, unable to see homes on the other side of the street.
Phil Kiddoo, the air pollution control officer now in charge of Owens Lake, says that on some days the lake bed emitted more than 100 times more dust than the federal government considers safe, spewing 75,000 tons of particulate matter every year. In the second half of the 20th century, this sparsely visited corner of the Sierra mountains became the single largest source of dust in North America.
In 1997, Los Angeles finally agreed to make amends by funding a massive dust suppression effort here. The 100 square miles of lake bed was divided by berms into roughly 75 cells, each one employing a slightly different dust mitigation technique: one cell might consist of a miles-long blanket of gravel, while another is planted with sprinklers, keeping the ground moist. A third cell might be covered by a shallow layer of hyper-saline, Pepto-Bismol-pink brine. These efforts have come at a significant price: the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has paid out $2 billion so far and continues to fund air quality monitoring and year-round management. If these efforts were to be paused for as little as two weeks, Kiddoo says, the area would begin to dry up again, and the dust would return.
Residents hid indoors, unable to see homes on the other side of the street
It’s ugly and expensive, but it works. It’s estimated that the mitigation efforts now capture between 95 and 98 percent of the playa’s dust. Although a hard, 30 mph wind blew on the day of my visit, the air quality was no worse than what you’d find in Los Angeles. In fact, the air was brilliant: I could see clear across miles of lake bed, into Owens Valley, and off to the distant snow-capped peak of Mount Whitney.
Kiddoo is proud of what he and his team do, but he also admits, “You don’t want to end up here if you don’t have to.” As we drove across Owens Lake’s shattered landscape, I asked him what advice he’d give to those at the Salton Sea. He sighed deeply.
Before he worked in air control, he was an EMT. The experience taught him to triage injuries — weeding out the critically wounded from bellyachers. With the Salton Sea, Kiddoo says, “You’ve got a dying patient, and if you don’t act now, he’ll be dead.”
In March 2017, just nine months before the easement period expired, the state of California finally released a 10-year plan to address the Salton Sea. As the sea shrinks, the plan envisions diverting the remaining farm runoff and mixing it with Salton Sea water to create shallow, dust-suppressing pools along the shores to sustain wildlife and vegetation. Elsewhere, the state will dig ridges into the earth to trap fugitive dust, similar to techniques employed at Owens Lake. Depending on who you ask, the plan is either a case of “too little too late,” or “better than nothing.”
For one, the plan doesn’t address the sea’s central body of water. It will continue to shrink and concentrate until it becomes almost barren. (One official suggested to me that the exposed earth could be used to build a solar power farm.) In addition, the plan only addresses the sea’s north and south ends; there are no dust suppression projects for the significantly longer eastern and western shorelines, home to the struggling seaside communities of Desert Shores, Salton City, and Bombay Beach. As the shoreline recedes by miles, these waterfront communities — replete with docks and marinas — will be left marooned. Though it’s estimated almost 60,000 acres of playa will be exposed over the next decade, the state only outlines dust mitigations for less than 30,000 of them.
It will continue to shrink and concentrate until it becomes almost barren
After decades of empty promises, money is finally starting to come in for restoration efforts. The 10-year plan will cost almost $400 million, and 80 million of those dollars have already been appropriated; a ballot proposition passed in early June of 2018 allocated another $200 million. A November water bond could deliver $200 million more. Those are big numbers, but they pale in comparison to water projects the state has agreed to fund elsewhere.
And as residents here know, a plan — even a funded one — is no guarantee of action. “We have a plan, we have money, there is additional money lined up, and we have a constituency — myself included — that is running out of patience,” California assemblyman Eduardo Garcia said at a recent hearing established to address the continued delays. Though the plan was only introduced a year ago, state officials admit they are already running severely behind schedule. A recently published progress report indicated the state would miss its already modest 2018 goal of suppressing 500 acres, and only complete suppression on the 300 of 1300 acres planned for 2019.
One late afternoon, I traveled to the Red Hill Bay Restoration Project at the southern end of the sea. What was supposed to be a model for the rest of the sea has become mired in some of the complications and inertia that have plagued restoration efforts here from the beginning. Project lead Chris Schoneman gave me a tour of the area in his white Dodge Ram. After cresting a seawall now located hundreds of feet from the water, we made our way toward a boat launch that sits a third of a mile away from the shore.
The Red Hill Bay Restoration Project will divert nutrient-rich water from the Alamo, mix it with hypersaline water pumped from the sea, and release it into a large, shallow pool to create habitat for migratory wildlife. Alongside the pool, Schoneman’s team tilled dry playa to suppress dust. But because of unforeseen construction challenges and fiscal constraints, Schoneman admits the project is now $380,000 over initial budget. Originally slated to open in early 2017, he hopes it’ll be done by the end of this year.
Under the dust hid dirt the color of dried blood
As we walked past the outcropping for which Red Hill Bay is named, Schoneman kicked at the small dunes of dust that had gathered at his feet. Under the dust hid dirt the color of dried blood.
Unless wide-scale dust mitigation measures are put in place soon, the cost of the Salton Sea will continue to mount, both financially and in the health of the tens of thousands who live around the Imperial Valley.
Back in Coachella, sitting in the home she shares with her parents, two children, and her brother, Michelle Dugan says that she thinks about leaving Coachella, and maybe California altogether, though it’s expensive to move with children and she would miss her family. She says she’d like to go to Montana. She’s never been there, but she’s heard the air is clean.
Correction 6/6/2018 11:05AM EST: Patient John Paul Castro was incorrectly identified as John Paul Aguilera.
]]>I have no love for my phone. And yet, it’s the first thing I reach for in the morning and often the last thing I look at before going to sleep. I reach for it obsessively, reflexively, often for no reason at all. Sometimes I’ll look away from Twitter on my laptop so I can look at Twitter on my phone.
Simply put, our phones do too much. The services they give us easy access to — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter — leave us distracted, overwhelmed, and maybe even depressed. To break their habits, people are scrubbing their phones of notifications, grayscaling screens to make them less enticing, imprisoning their phones in nefarious-looking lockboxes, and attending over-the-top digital detox retreats. But changing our habits is hard. These are products methodically designed by behavioral scientists employed by the richest companies in the world, working to keep us endlessly engaged, forever thirsting for our next like.
But if we can’t change our behaviors, maybe we can change our devices. Enter the minimalist phone: a phone that does less. Over the course of a few weeks, I tried out four different phones — the Unihertz Jelly, the Nokia 3310 3G, the Punkt MP01, and the Light Phone — in an effort to curb how much time I spend needlessly scrolling and refreshing. Not every one of these phones is intentionally minimalist, but each came with unique limitations, built-in throttles that would effectively discourage anyone from wallowing in the stupor of infinite feeds. I was looking for a change. I was looking for salvation.
But when it was all over, I came crawling back to my iPhone.
Unihertz, the makers of the Jelly, call the phone “Impossibly small. Amazingly cute. Totally functional.” Two of those claims are true, and I’ll let you guess which ones.
The first thing you’ll notice about the Jelly, which retails for $125, is just how small it is. At just over three and a half inches in length, it fits in the palm of your hand. Despite that, it’s a real, honest-to-god smartphone: it runs Android 7.0, has a Quad Core 1.1GHz processor, and features both rear and front-facing cameras — though at 8 and 2 megapixels, you might not like what you see. The phone runs on 4G networks and supports dual SIM cards. Because of how thick it is, most people I showed it to thought it had a slide-out, Sidekick-style keyboard. It doesn’t, no matter how hard you push. Instead, it has a 2.5-inch fully functional touchscreen.
Admittedly, the Jelly is “impossibly cute” and “amazingly small.” It’s toy-like, and there’s something remarkable about watching a live Instagram video on a miniaturized screen. For those looking to disconnect, that size serves a purpose: though you can still scroll through feeds, chances are you’ll spend less time doing so. The size of the touchscreen adds a considerable layer of friction, so even if I had just as much functionality as I did on my iPhone, I found myself using it less. It was just too annoying to decipher the content of an Instagram post — or, god forbid, try to type out a comment.
Ultimately, the phone’s keyboard is what undermines its claim as “totally functional.” I have normal-sized hands — I think — but the Jelly’s minuscule keyboard left me feeling like I had sledgehammers for fingers. Just my thumb covered half the keys. My texts were full of so many typos I started texting less out of shame. “Okay” turned into “k.” Anything longer than a few words was best conveyed in a call. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing.
The Jelly’s other big drawback is battery life: there is none. The phone lost almost 20 percent of its juice within 15 minutes as I downloaded four apps. At an 83 percent charge, the phone told me that I had just over four hours of life left, and even that turned out to be overly optimistic. Eventually, I learned to carry around an external battery pack with me just to make it through the day. I’d never felt less minimalist.
Still, there was too much functionality. If I wanted to disconnect, I’d have to ditch smartphones altogether.
The original Nokia 3310 is one of the most iconic and commercially successful phones of all time. So in 2017, as part of the company’s nostalgia-focused marketing push, it brought the 3310 back to life. Design-wise, the new Nokia 3310 is pretty close to the original, though it does benefit from a significantly larger color screen and feels more bubbly than its brick-like predecessor.
The phone retails for $60, has a 2-megapixel camera in the back, runs Nokia’s proprietary OS, and comes with a predictable skeleton crew of 2002-era features: a calculator, an MP3 player, and, most importantly, all the Snake you can handle. Unlike the Jelly, it has a respectable battery life — an estimated 6.5 hours of talk time, and about 650 hours of standby life.
Those looking for a minimalist experience might be disappointed to find two new additions to the phone’s navigation screen: Facebook and Twitter icons. Rest assured, these aren’t actual apps, but instead shortcuts to Nokia’s web client. Open these up, and you’ll be banished to the mid-2000s, moving a clunky mouse cursor up and down with an old-school directional pad. It took me 10 minutes to pull up Twitter and complete my two-factor authentication, only to accidentally leave the web client and be faced with embarking on the process all over again. I gave up. The apps are so hard to use they may as well be nonexistent, which suited my purposes just fine.
But the Nokia 3310 comes with one step back in history that I ultimately couldn’t stomach: T9, a texting system so slow and miserable that it should’ve been left to die in the 2000s. I refuse to memorize how many times I have to hit “1” in order to land on a question mark.
If you’re looking for an intentional minimalist phone experience, you might want to consider the MP01, created by a Swiss company called Punkt. Punkt promises that the MPO1 has “no app icons, animations, or special effects vying for your attention.” It is, they assure, “everything you need, nothing you don’t,” and “timeless.” It also looks like a calculator.
Despite that, the MP01 feels nicely designed to the touch. The phone comes in three colors — black, brown, and white — and is about four and a half inches tall. It has a sturdy fiberglass-reinforced body, Gorilla Glass, and feels solid in your hand.
Unlike the Nokia, the MP01 really and truly only does two things: it makes calls and texts, and the face of the phone has easy access buttons to both functions. That limited functionality gives the MP01 good battery life — almost five hours of talk time, and an optimal standby time of over 20 days.
But — and there’s always a but with minimalist phones — the MP01 costs $230. That’s a lot to pay for a device that only does two things. And one of them, not so well. Texting is clunky, and the phone has trouble with the basic task of capitalizing just the first letter of a sentence. In a seeming nod to an earlier — and worse — era of email, the MP01 does not thread text conversations. Instead, messages are divided into Inbox and Outbox folders, and nary the two shall meet. For a minimalist phone, it feels maximally confusing.
The MP01 also only currently works on a 2G network. That’s a problem because if they haven’t already, most of the major carriers will be phasing out 2G coverage over the next few years. So much for timeless.
If there’s one phone that represents the epitome of the minimalist phone trend, it’s the Light Phone. It’s a business card-sized device that you can use independently on a 2G network or tether to your smartphone. It does one thing and one thing only: make phone calls. It costs $150 and comes with six months of a free SIM card from the company.
The Light Phone only comes in two colors: white and black. It weighs a featherlight 38.5 grams and has a muted OLED display. It can display your call logs, but not much more than that, and it has a three-day standby time. It’s a beautiful gadget that, despite its limited functionality, actually feels like it’s from the future.
But that limited functionality needs to be addressed. The problem with having a phone that only makes calls is that it takes two to talk. And in 2018, whoever you call probably won’t pick up — maybe their phone is on silent, maybe they don’t have time to talk, or maybe they just don’t like you. (And if they do pick up, you’re sure to cause alarm since, these days, it seems out-of-the-blue phone calls are almost exclusively reserved for life-and-death scenarios.) If no one’s picking up on the other end, what’s the point of even having a phone? Instead of buying the Light Phone, I suggest you just toss your current phone over a cliff. It may be just as useful.
Its extremely limited functionality makes the Light Phone feel more like an experiment than a viable product — an attempt to gauge whether there’s enough consumer appetite for a phone dedicated to the minimalist experience. Apparently, there is: according to the company, the Light Phone has shipped to 10,000 customers. In fact, at the time of this review, the Light Phone was totally sold out and no longer available for purchase.
In early 2018, the creators behind the Light Phone announced the development of the Light Phone 2, a 4G version of the original that will feature “E Ink, messaging & other essential tools,” and even a full keyboard. The Indiegogo campaign to finance the project has met and exceeded its fundraising goal of $400,000 by over $1.1 million. It’s slated for release in spring 2019.
Ultimately, none of the phones I tried hit the minimalist sweet spot: either the battery life sucked, or I was left frustrated with a texting interface that was shabby or nonexistent. But the experiment did clarify what a viable alternative to a smartphone should look like. First, and foremost, even a minimalist phone should have a full-sized keyboard. Texting is a fact of life in 2018, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Forcing users to make phone calls to relay every message is unrealistic, and asking them to relearn T9 is cruel.
But aside from that, everything else can go — the social networks, the cameras, the dual cameras, and the big color screen. My phone could be one large bezel for all I care, as long as I can text effectively when I need to and have enough battery life to make it through the day. As far as I can tell, that phone doesn’t exist yet — though the Light Phone 2 sounds like it may come close.
For now, it’ll just be me and my iPhone. And until a good minimalist phone arrives, I’ll do my best to resist Instagram Discover’s endless feed of rescued dog videos, stale memes, and sports clips, but I’m not making any promises.
Vox Media has affiliate partnerships. These do not influence editorial content, though Vox Media may earn commissions for products purchased via affiliate links. For more information, see our ethics policy.
]]>After yesterday’s seemingly endless marathon hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, today Mark Zuckerberg heads to the House, where he’ll be answering questions in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Yesterday’s session featured almost 50 legislators peppering Zuckerberg with queries about how Facebook safeguards user data, details on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and even questions about what kind of regulations Zuckerberg believes should be put in place to regulate Facebook.
The day ended with a number of revelations: Zuckerberg said that Facebook “doesn’t feel” like a monopoly to him, but he had a hard time naming a viable competitor; he hinted that there may one day be a paid version of the platform; over and over, he promised senators that data privacy was a legitimate concern, and a priority for the platform; he supports legislation to rein in Facebook’s data collection powers, but he had a hard time committing to supporting new laws that would do that. And he once again tried to tamp down suspicion that Facebook listened to our conversations through our phones. We also learned that a lot of the legislators responsible for regulating Facebook don’t fully understand what Facebook is — or how it works.
Zuckerberg looked mostly comfortable and confident through the almost 5-hour long hearing. Let’s see how he holds up on day two.
HOW TO FOLLOW ALONG
Start time: 10AM ET / 7AM PT
Live stream: We’ve set up a Facebook Live stream, which you’ll be able to watch on this page starting 10 minutes before the beginning of the hearing.
Live blog: Tune into The Verge’s live blog for a stream of the event and up-to-the-second commentary from Casey Newton and Colin Lecher.
Due to limitations of the Facebook Live platform, the first four hours of today’s testimony can be found here:
]]>Today, Mark Zuckerberg will testify in the first of two widely anticipated hearings before Congress. The first hearing, scheduled for later today at 2:15PM ET, will take place before a joint session of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
This isn’t the first time Facebook has been forced to testify about the vulnerabilities of its platform before Congress: in October, Facebook, along with Google and Twitter, were asked to account for how their networks were used by foreign agents to influence the 2016 election. Zuckerberg was spared from the grilling, though, and Facebook got away with simply sending the company’s top lawyer to DC.
“I’m glad Mr. Zuckerberg has agreed to face the music.”
But the last six months have not been kind to Facebook. The data-sharing scandal surrounding how users’ data ended up in the hands of Cambridge Analytica unleashed serious concerns about the platform’s seemingly unchecked powers and influence across society, leading to a #deletefacebook campaign and even calls by investors for Zuckerberg to step down as the company’s chairman. This time, the invitation to testify before Congress was one Zuckerberg seemingly couldn’t refuse.
Ahead of the hearings, members hinted that Zuckerberg should expect a hard line of questioning over the next two days. “I’m glad Mr. Zuckerberg has agreed to face the music. His company has shamelessly shredded the privacy rights of its users,” wrote Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) in a statement. Blumenthal sits on the Judiciary and Commerce committees, which will lead Tuesday’s questioning. “This hearing is a good first step towards instituting some vitally necessary rules of the road for Big Tech.”
Start time: 2:15PM ET / 11:15AM PT
Live stream: We’ve set up a Facebook Live stream, which you’ll be able to watch on this page starting 10 minutes before the beginning of the hearing.
Live blog: Tune into The Verge’s live blog for a stream of the event and up-to-the-second commentary from Casey Newton and Colin Lecher.
Due to constraints of the Facebook Live platform, the stream continues here:
]]>Yesterday, a shooter walked into YouTube’s headquarters in California and began firing at employees, leaving three people injured with gunshot wounds. A picture of the tragedy, and the suspect behind it, is now emerging. Here are the facts that have come to light so far.
Around lunchtime on Tuesday, April 3rd, employees at YouTube’s headquarters in San Bruno, California, began reporting gunshots fired in the building. Several employees called 911, and others tweeted about the shooting, including Vadim Lavrusik, whose message was widely cited in early reports.
Three people are being treated for gunshot wounds
A San Bruno police report says that officers arrived on site a few minutes after receiving calls about the shooting. YouTube employees were evacuating the building, and police encountered one person with an apparent gunshot wound, while two others, also wounded, had already left the campus. These three people were taken to the hospital, and as of yesterday, one was listed in fair condition, another in serious condition, and a third in critical condition. A fourth person was treated for a twisted ankle, possibly sustained while escaping the building.
Inside the building, police found a deceased woman who has been identified as Nasim Aghdam, a 39-year-old woman from San Diego who apparently died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
At a Wednesday press conference, San Bruno police chief Ed Barberini said that Aghdam had entered YouTube’s headquarters through a parking garage and gotten access to a courtyard, where she started shooting.
Early reports suggested that the attack had been committed by a woman attempting to shoot her boyfriend. San Bruno police later said they had no evidence that the shooter knew any of her victims or was targeting a specific person. There was, however, evidence that Aghdam had a long-running grudge against YouTube. In the Wednesday press conference, Barberini said that anger against YouTube’s policies was being considered the motive for the shooting.
Aghdam’s father Ismail Aghdam said he’d reported her missing before the shooting and told police that she might be headed to YouTube, a company she “hated.” He told The Mercury News that his daughter had complained to the family about YouTube “censoring” and demonetizing her videos. Barberini said that she had been reported as missing since March 31st. Police found Aghdam sleeping in her car in Mountain View, California, the night before the shooting.
Aghdam complained about YouTube online
Her brother Shahran Aghdam said “she was always complaining that YouTube ruined her life.” He also said that he warned police she might “do something” at the company headquarters, after hearing that she’d driven to Mountain View and discovering that YouTube’s campus was located there.
Mountain View’s police department later issued a statement denying reports that the family had warned them about Aghdam. According to the statement, police had run the license plate on Aghdam’s car, found the missing persons report, and questioned her for roughly 20 minutes. She allegedly told them she had left home due to family problems and was looking for a job. The department claims her father and brother never mentioned a potential threat to YouTube, although they said Youtube had “done something to her videos” that upset her. The police say her father “did not seem concerned” that she was in Mountain View.
According to Barberini, Aghdam went to a gun range on the morning of the shooting, and used a gun registered under her own name in the attack.
Aghdam regularly posted videos about veganism and animal rights and claimed that YouTube was deliberately filtering and demonetizing her work to stop it from getting views. “There is no free speech in real world [and] you will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not supported by the system,” she wrote on a personal website. “There is no equal growth opportunity on YOUTUBE or any other video sharing site, your channel will grow if they want [it] to!!!!!”
This is an extreme version of a claim that’s been made by many YouTubers. Users across the political spectrum have alleged that YouTube pulled ads on videos that didn’t violate its terms for monetization, or filtered videos to make them harder to find. A judge recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by conservative organization PragerU, which said that YouTube had discriminated against its videos. And creators protested a January decision to only monetize channels with a certain number of subscribers and viewing hours, limiting the options for smaller or newer channels. Obviously, however, this is all peaceful criticism of the site — not anything equivalent to Aghdam’s shooting.
Misinformation began spreading immediately after the shooting. Soon after Lavrusik reported himself safe on Twitter, a hoaxer hacked his account and began posting fake messages, including one that asked readers to “find his friend” with a picture of the popular YouTuber Keemstar. Lavrusik has since recovered his account.
Misinformation began spreading immediately after the shooting
Hoaxers also began circulating fake claims that are made after many shootings, including accusations that comedian Sam Hyde was the shooter. They made a number of other false accusations against various YouTubers, as well as BuzzFeed reporter Jane Lytvynenko, who had been debunking the hoaxes.
Like most shootings, this attack has predictably drawn claims that it was a “false flag” operation designed to demonize gun owners. An early report said the shooter was wearing a headscarf, which led to some online speculation — including a tweet from Gateway Pundit reporter Lucian Wintrich — that she might be Muslim. There’s no evidence of this so far.
Notably, we haven’t seen a ton of hoax and conspiracy material getting promoted by platforms like Facebook and Google search, although one video made it into Facebook’s search results. This could obviously change, but it’s still a significant contrast to what happened after February’s shooting in Parkland — when, among other things, a video claiming students were “crisis actors” trended on YouTube.
In the wake of the attack, major tech companies and executives expressed their condolences to the victims, including YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki.
The Google corporate Twitter account shared a note from Google CEO Sundar Pichai.
Pichai also acknowledged the tragedy on his personal account.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey shared his condolences and acknowledged that the platform was being used to share hoaxes. Minutes after the shooting, a hacker took over the Twitter account of a YouTube manager to spread disinformation.
The executive chairman of Twitter, Omid Kordestani also shared his thoughts.
As did Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.
And Tim Cook, CEO of Apple.
Followed by Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft.
The YouTube community also responded to the shooting, with some of the platform’s biggest and most visible creators expressing their shock.
Casey Neistat posted a live news feed from YouTube’s headquarters.
Lilly Singh retweeted Wojcicki’s tweet.
And Philip DeFranco made a connection between the attack and the shooter’s videos in which she accused the platform of suppressing her videos.
Jake Paul published a reaction video shortly after the shooting in which he says he’s “devastated, I’m pissed off, I’m angry, I’m confused.”
As the story develops, we will continue to update this page with verified information about the shooting.
]]>Despite the fact that so much of our communication now happens online, TV and film have traditionally done a bad job of translating our texts, emails, and DMs to the screen. There are a lot of good reasons why: text communication doesn’t have the inherent drama of face-to-face dialogue. It dates itself quickly. And, as Tony Zhou pointed out in his video “A Brief Look at Texting and the Internet in Film” on Vimeo, dedicating precious screen time to depicting, well, another screen, can be counterintuitive and expensive. Text-based conversations on-screen often end up feeling awkward and unnatural, with geriatrically large text to let us read over a character’s shoulder, off-brand emoji floating in midair, or, worst of all, characters that narrate their texts out loud.
The issue is so pressing that in 2016, two of my colleagues argued over how best to tackle texting in filmmaking. Jamieson Cox finally landed on a simple suggestion: “Don’t make your characters text unless it’s a fundamental part of the action.”
It’s a smart suggestion. It’s also a cop-out. Chances are, the most emotionally memorable moment of your day sprang from online correspondence: a frustrating Slack conversation with a coworker, an ambiguous text from a crush, a passive-aggressive email from your boss. In an era where many of us have developed anxiety over actual phone calls, choosing to ignore our text exchanges in TV and film increasingly feels like an abdication of responsibility.
We spend an inordinate amount of time on our phones, and it’s time for filmmakers to acknowledge that
Wobble Palace, which premiered at SXSW this past weekend, takes a different tack. The film centers on Eugene (played by director and co-writer Eugene Kotlyarenko) and Jane (co-writer Dasha Nekrasova), a couple who decides to split their apartment for a weekend shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Each of them gets to do whatever they like in their home for one day in an effort to cope with their deteriorating relationship or maybe just hasten its demise. True to life, both characters spend a considerable amount of time on their phones: Tindering furiously, ordering Ubers, concocting affected Instagram stories, and taking BuzzFeed-style basic bitch quizzes.
Kotlyarenko’s directorial approach to these interactions is straightforward: he intermittently lops off a third of the screen and projects what’s happening on either Eugene or Jane’s phone. We see Eugene workshop a Tinder message to death before hitting send. When he sees an embarrassing blog, he scrolls down the page, then back up, then zooms in on the cringiest part. The space and time dedicated to these interactions is a refreshingly honest admission that, for better or worse (probably worse), we spend an inordinate amount of time on our phones. They’re our conduit to the people and experiences around us. It’s time for filmmakers to acknowledge that.
The morning after Wobble Palace’s premiere, I spoke to Kotlyarenko about why filmmakers are so reticent to engage with technology and how our phones drive our neuroses.
This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.
So, the movie opens on us casually scrolling through what looks like a years-long conversation between Eugene and Jane: everything from the first text to the inevitable nudes, the cute “I miss you”s all the way through to the terse, prosaic texts that mark the end of a relationship. It’s a remarkably succinct way to recap a relationship. How’d you come up with it?
I was standing with the editor, and he had just gone to see Get Out. I hadn’t seen it yet, but I knew the premise: they were going to see the girl’s parents for the first time. And I said, “What’s the opening?” And [the editor] said, “[It’s] just them driving and it’s kind of moody and they hit a deer.” And I said, “Well, that’s kind of boring.”
I thought, wouldn’t it be cool if you could see their entire history up until that point? Maybe in some sort of crazy time-lapse, or you could see their text conversations so you knew what their relationship was like up until this crucial moment when he meets her parents for the first time… And I said, “Well a good filmmaker would probably do something like that. Too bad we can’t do that for our movie.” Then I went to the bathroom, and I was sitting there and was like, well, maybe we can do this for our movie. Let’s do that, let’s create a text history between these two characters. Let’s start the movie off with that.
I called Dasha and we got together, and it actually took us four days to make that sequence come together with all those texts and stuff. Because if you go through it frame by frame, it all makes sense. It’s an entire relationship history. Even just going from the green texts to the blue texts, it was all very intentional and planned out: she got an iPhone at some point. I’m very happy that we did that. And, for the record, when I did see Get Out I thought, “Oh that’s a perfect opening sequence for this movie because that’s clearly a motif that runs through the film.” But I’m glad I hadn’t seen it at that point because it led to this cool thing for us.
There’s a reticence on the part of TV and filmmakers to fully engage with technology on-screen both in how the characters communicate but also the devices they use. And when filmmakers do take on technology, more often than not, it comes off dated and stale. Why is that?
In some of those filmmakers’ defense, part of it has to do with how long it actually takes from the conception of a film to the release. The progress that tech and our personal devices make between raising money and the release of a film is actually startling. I actually felt that very intensely in my first movie [0s and 1s]. It took us three years to make it, from basically 2008–2011. When we started, the smartest phone was a BlackBerry, and by the time we were done, there were iPhones and Androids and shit. It affected the movie. In the movie, the lead character loses his computer. And by 2011, 2012, when the movie played in a few theaters it was like, “Okay, well, you lost your computer, but at least you still have your smartphone.”
“I think most filmmakers are too scared or too lazy to figure out how to make sense of [technology].”
A lot of my favorite filmmakers ignore technology and willfully make period pieces so they don’t have to deal with today. Or maybe they feel like they’re dealing with today in a more allegorical or symbolic way. I’m thinking of people like [Paul Thomas] Anderson. He’s one of the greatest filmmakers, and you’ll never see any sort of phone [in his movies]. His last attempt at phones was Punch Drunk Love, and it’s all about landline phone sex, which is so different than this age of internet porn and cam girls and stuff.
But then there are people like Brian De Palma who made a great movie called Passion in which there are thrilling elements generated by email and webcam, weird surveillance cams and stuff. It comes down to the kind of filmmaker you are, but I think most filmmakers are too scared or too lazy to figure out how to make sense of it.
There’s a sequence in Wobble Palace where Eugene is Tinder messaging with a match, and he spirals into a neurotic frenzy when the woman he’s chatting with doesn’t respond quickly enough. It’s an extreme example, but the neuroses we’ve developed around texting are very real. It’s bizarre that so many filmmakers decide to ignore that part of our lives.
For sure. [With texting], you can go through a lot of great accounts of women who have experienced the vitriol and the complete egomaniacal stupidity of men who can’t wait and assume the worst things. And that isn’t on the woman, for sure, it’s on the thirsty man. But in another way, it’s also on the technology. It sets up a world of expectations and a whole new way of interacting that is totally skewed from our emotional evolution as human beings.
We’re not hardwired for instant gratification all the time, but now we’re offered that. And now that we’re used to it, [whenever a situation] occasionally deviates from that expectation… it creates a serious disjunction in that person’s emotional and psychological state. And that’s where you get a lot of people flipping out, and getting into flame wars, and writing and saying all sorts of shit that they would never say in real life. I’m sure much smarter people than me have written long think pieces about this stuff — the mentality that’s created by communication over the internet. I thought that was important to put into a movie.
I wonder if that constant search for stimulation and gratification can doom our relationships and whether that’s what weighs on the characters in your movie.
People’s relationships with their phones are potentially the strongest relationships [they] have in their lives — even if they have real relationships. How often do you go out to dinner and see couples sitting across from each other on their phones the whole time? It happens frighteningly a lot. I see it all the time. Whether or not that’s why [Jane and Eugene]’s relationship doesn’t work, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to the viewers.
After the screening last night, I had a lot of people come up to me and say that it was really triggering. People were thinking about their relationships or their past relationships — women, men, older people, younger people. They all said similar things to me. It was funny, and then it was just really sad. You can’t help but reflect on your own situation. That’s one of the questions the film is posing: what happens to relationships now? How does having Tinder around [affect them]? Or having Snapchat around? How does being able to text any random person at any time, affect your relationship with fidelity or monogamy or love or longevity?
“People’s relationships with their phones are potentially the strongest relationship [they] have in their lives.”
I wonder if that’s a set of questions that’s really only pertinent to people in our generation. We’re both in our early 30s, and we’re part of this bridge generation that remembers a pre-internet age but also feels comfortable in the digital era. I wonder if that leaves us particularly vulnerable to nostalgia for a less connected era than someone in their teens now.
That’s a fair point and a fair question. I think, and hope, that they’ll care more than ever, honestly. Yes, I’m in this transitional generation, this sort of bridge generation. I think that’s sort of lucky because I remember what it was like before and I can pretty organically pick up any new developments that happen in technology — for now, at least. And for probably the next 10–15 years before I also become a dinosaur. But I remember what it used to be like.
I do think that people who are 17 years old, who are 23 years old, are experiencing the same anxieties I’m experiencing. I don’t think that having had the pre-millennial or the pre-smartphone experience means that you’re the only one who has anxiety from these things… I think people who are 10 years younger than me get that this shit is fucked. It’s not a natural way to live: on your phone all the time, projecting some image that may or may not be you, constantly negotiating how other people feel about you, communicating all the time. It’s draining. It’s exhausting.
I have a theory that the median mortality age will probably go down by 10 years. This is me, cockamamy Eugene, but we’re really draining our minds and exhausting ourselves by constantly worrying and investing and doing this shit all the time. Straining our eyes, thinking about yourself in this weird projected way. It’s twisted rotten. It is an addiction. I’m not trying to get polemical because there are a lot of great things about it, and it’s our lives now — what’s the point of hating it? But it is deleterious to our psyche and our health. Maybe this is old fogey shit and maybe I’m already irrelevant, but I don’t think so. I think teenagers have to deal with it, and a lot of their anxiety is exacerbated by social media and their phones.
It really can feel exhausting, keeping up on all our social media platforms, our projections of ourselves.
It’s a hamster wheel, really. There’s a Sisyphean quality to it. The second you feel any bit of achievement, up on top of the hill, it kind of rolls back down. It’s a twisted reality, but it’s the reality that we’ve made for ourselves. So… rock ’n roll!
]]>Yesterday, one week out from an FCC vote that will almost certainly decimate the open internet protections put in place during the Obama administration, thousands took to the streets. The protests were organized by Fight for the Future, a 10-person nonprofit dedicated to preserving the doctrine known as Net Neutrality, as well as Demand Progress, and Free Press Acton Fund. Protests were located in front of Verizon stores across the country. Verizon is one of a handful of large ISPs that is set to profit from the commission chairman Ajit Pai’s expected rollback.
Protests took place as far afield as Tampa, Florida, to Harrison, Arkansas, to Seattle, Washington. The Verge sent staff photographer Amelia Krales to document the protest in New York City’s Bryant Park.
Correction: The text has been tweaked to indicate that Demand Progress and Free Press Acton Fund also assisted in the organization of these protests.
This year marked a sea change in our attitude toward tech’s largest players — and not for the better. Facebook, with a user base twice the size of the Western Hemisphere, seems to be in the midst of an identity crisis: CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent much of 2017 on a national tour that The New York Times billed as a “real-world education.” Meanwhile, the platform has become embroiled in a national debate that started with fake news and has evolved into an investigation into how the Russian government weaponized the network to influence the 2016 presidential election. Next week, the company will be brought to testify in front of Congress on the matter.
Amazon made considerable headway in its quest to serve every part of our lives, from acquiring Whole Foods this summer to rolling out a plan to get keys to our front doors just this week. Apple continues to amass a vast reserve last valued at $260 billion, but its top-tier devices have lost their luster, and it’s been years since the company released a truly game-changing product. Twitter has come under increased scrutiny for harassment and bot armies of nefarious origin, which may explain its tepid user base growth despite becoming the new unofficial platform for American politics. And there’s a growing sense, underlined by this summer’s $2.7 billion EU antitrust ruling against Google, that the entire cabal of big tech companies have turned the corner from friendly giants to insidious monopolies.
Big tech companies have turned the corner from friendly giants to insidious monopolies
We wanted to know how you felt about these companies. So late last month, The Verge partnered with Reticle Research to conduct a wide-ranging survey on the public’s attitude toward some of the biggest names in tech. This is the first in what will be a series of semi-annual Verge studies tracking the public’s attitude toward the companies we’re increasingly dependent on.
This survey, conducted from September 28th to October 10th, included 1,520 people nationally representative of the US, based on 2016 US Census estimates. The margin of error is ±3 percent, with a confidence level of 95 percent.
The findings are fascinating: respondents trusted Facebook less than Google, and “trust” was a primary factor for individuals who abstained from using Facebook overall. Respondents trusted Amazon almost as much as their own bank. Of all the companies named in our survey, respondents were most likely to recommend services from Amazon to their family and friends. Twitter sits on the opposite side of the spectrum: a quarter of respondents said they are probably, or not at all likely, to recommend the service.
Read our breakout reports or scroll down to see our full deck of findings below
Correction, 11:09 a.m.: This article originally included a slide that asked respondents about Facebook’s business model. Due to an error in the wording of the question, the slide and corresponding analysis have been removed.
]]>