Article
Start-ups Consumer Electronics

Founders are betting that the backlash against screens will be a business, not a trend

by Ian Lyall
The image features colorful plastic game pieces arranged on a blue surface. The central pieces spell out the word 'GAME' in a playful manner, surrounded by other scattered letters. — Credit: Photo by Andrey Metelev on Unsplash c Photo by Andrey Metelev on Unsplash

A cluster of start-ups is emerging around a thesis that runs directly counter to the AI consensus: people want to spend less time staring at screens, and they will pay for products that help them do it.

Board, a new business from Bin Putnam, focuses on in-person gaming with a digital component. The idea is that the social experience of playing a game face to face is the product, with technology serving as an enabler rather than the main event.

At the other end of the spectrum, independent creators are building cyberdecks, custom-made computers in unusual form factors designed to make computing feel tactile and intentional rather than passive and addictive. A clamshell phone that runs a full operating system. A device that makes you sit outside to use it.

Humane lesson

The most obvious predecessor in this space is Humane, which launched a wearable AI assistant designed to replace the phone. The product failed commercially, but the problem it identified, that people feel trapped by their screens, resonated with millions.

The current wave of startups is approaching the same problem from different angles and at lower price points. A board game costs less than a wearable computer. A cyberdeck is a hobby project, not a consumer electronics launch. The risk is lower. The experimentation is broader.

Whether it lasts

The concern is that anti-screen products are a cultural moment rather than a durable market. If the first wave of startups fails, consumer interest may fade and the problem goes back to being something people complain about without paying to solve.

But the demographic signal is interesting. Many of these products target younger users who grew up on phones and are actively seeking alternatives. If that preference holds as this generation gains spending power, the market could be real.

The irony of building technology products to reduce technology usage is obvious. Whether it is a contradiction or a genuine opportunity depends on whether the products work well enough that people keep using them.

Most startups fail. These will too, mostly. But the ones that survive could define a category that does not yet have a name.

by Ian Lyall