I tried the magnetic mouse with its own folding USB-C charge cable

The Verge - Apr 28th, 2025

The ESR MagMouse, priced at $36, introduces a novel concept in travel mouse design with magnetic capabilities, allowing it to stick to surfaces like ESR's magnetic laptop docking pad. This lightweight, 75-gram mouse features Bluetooth and 2.4GHz wireless modes, a built-in USB-C charging cable, and a slot for its USB-A dongle. The device is not compatible with MagSafe gadgets or other magnetic ecosystems, as it is specifically designed for use with ESR's docking pad. The docking pad provides a secure perch for the mouse, although it can be cumbersome when fitting a laptop into a sleeve. While not premium, the seven-button, 4800dpi mouse is functional and responsive, appealing at its price point.

The MagMouse is set to start shipping to Kickstarter backers on June 6th, though potential backers should be cautious due to the inherent risks of crowdfunding projects. The mouse's magnetic design, while innovative, raises questions about its practicality in travel scenarios, as sticking it to a laptop inside a bag might not be desirable. The lack of compatibility with wider magnetic ecosystems and the absence of wireless charging are notable limitations. Despite these, the MagMouse could find a niche audience among office users seeking convenience and innovative tech solutions.

Kickstarter Esr Mag Mouse Magnetic Mouse Travel Accessories Wireless Connectivity

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a detailed overview of the ESR MagMouse, highlighting its innovative features and potential drawbacks. It is timely and relevant to tech enthusiasts, offering insights into a new product entering the market. However, the article lacks diverse sources and perspectives, relying heavily on the author's personal testing experience. While it is clear and well-structured, the absence of external citations and a broader range of viewpoints limits its authority and balance. The potential for public interest and impact is moderate, primarily influencing individual consumer decisions rather than broader societal changes. Overall, the article is informative and engaging for its target audience but could benefit from greater transparency and source diversity.

Accuracy

The article generally aligns with factual details about the ESR MagMouse, such as its price, weight, and connectivity options. However, there are discrepancies regarding the price, as the article mentions $36, while other sources indicate a Kickstarter early-bird pricing structure. The weight is consistent, but the magnetic compatibility claims need further verification, as the article states it is not MagSafe-compatible, which is supported by other sources. The battery life and charging claims are consistent with other reports, but real-world performance verification is necessary. Some claims, like the mouse's ability to stick to various surfaces, lack specificity and need additional evidence.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the features and potential drawbacks of the ESR MagMouse, offering a somewhat balanced view by acknowledging both its innovative aspects and its limitations. However, it lacks perspectives from other stakeholders, such as consumers or industry experts, which could provide a more rounded view. The mention of potential improvements, like wireless charging, introduces a critical perspective but doesn't explore alternative viewpoints or user experiences extensively.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the product's features, benefits, and limitations. The language is straightforward and accessible, though some technical details, like DPI settings and connectivity options, may require prior knowledge. The tone is neutral, but occasional informal language, such as rhetorical questions, might detract from professionalism.

Source quality

The article does not cite any external sources or provide direct attributions, relying instead on the author's personal testing experience. This limits the ability to assess the credibility and reliability of the information presented. The lack of diverse sources or expert opinions reduces the authority of the claims, making it difficult to evaluate potential conflicts of interest or biases in reporting.

Transparency

The article is somewhat transparent in disclosing that the author personally tested the product, which adds a level of firsthand experience. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the testing methodology or any potential conflicts of interest, such as affiliations with the product manufacturer. The basis for claims about the product's performance and limitations is not fully disclosed, which could affect impartiality.