A lot to do for FP3: mains cost, RAM, storage, IP68, cover cost, thickness, weight

Agreed that mining, manufacturing erc are being taken care of, that the design allows for a long term use of the phone, here are important factors.

  • water resistance: ip68 or similar is not easy with an open design, but should be somehow accomplished maybe through a tough cover or other design principles and be produced sold with the phone
  • the mains cost 312 euro to replace. That means disk, ram, and motherboard. This is an overly expensive spare part considering that the whole cost of each phone is 340 (checked the 2014 fp2 pdf paper). How is this ‘fair’? Outrageous is a word that came to me first, sorry to say.
  • ram and storage: upgrading it would be nice as an extra device. We see phones with 6GB ram on the market, why does FP2 stop at 2GB (my galaxy note 2 n7100 from year 2012 is still functioning perfectly and has 2 GB)?
  • the blue cover: something standard to start with is more appealing to the masses. 27 euro for a back cover is not so “fair” considering a white or black option to be possibly selectable at checkout should be present and free
  • the overall thickness and weight make for a bulky device. I hope there will be a FP3 in the future, with some smart choices. This project can and should outdo most other competitors
  • Service providers agreeing on selling this phone “as is” with no conditions aside of contractual ones (ie you pay a monthly in your bill for 12-24-30 months) could have more units ordered and have both a lower price (if assumably ordering more parts can grant better parts, 100k is not much although a lovely first step) and mean less blood-minerals-labour etc out there.
  • keyboard integration? Priv blackberry or alike is a lovely plus Yolla/jolla had an extension too.

I back this project but there is a lot of work to be done and some things don’t really come across as fair pricewise to who accepts a higher fee for an ultimately mid range phone.

I hope my post is received as the expression of a thought as it is, there is always room to do better and this project deserves a lot of praise for being real and closer to ethics than probably any other (I do hope and wish Apple to be doing something good considering the marketshare it has and the enormous profit).
I wish this project to be noticed, advertized enough so as to influence the behaviour of other producers too, both in the supply & manufacture and in the design choices and spares (availability and prices).

1 Like

Nope. There is still much work to do.

You can’t just expect the additional costs to be dropped for spare parts. You still have to pay for taxes, operations and investments.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say there.

FP2 was designed from the inside out. Meaning Fairphone’s first objective was to use conflict-free minerals, to create fair working conditions for the factory workers and to make the phone long lasting and easy to repair. The design was secondary. I think that was a great choice - size and weight are a matter of opinion anyway.

FP2 has an extension port like the Jolla phone, so 3rd parties/the community can build extensions like a keyboard.

The rather high price is simply a result of the low production numbers. If they sold thousands of devices a week they could produce their parts much cheaper.


A black option is present, and it is the same price as the blue one (At least, it is for me, if it is different for you then that would be interesting… Here’s a direct link. Same goes for the transparent variations on the colours)


This was sacrificed in order to make the device easily opened, without the need of many or special tools. A wise choice, I’d say, as the openness and easy access for self-repair seems more important than water resistance, in my opinion.

That may be so, but the FP2 is not a high-end model, but when launched was upper middle class - and intended as such. Thus it wasn’t designed with the latest or high-end hardware in general.

When ordering you can select the cover in one of 5 different variations, all for the same price. So I don’t get your point here. But I agree, if one only has to order an additional back cover, than incl shipping it seems rather expensive.

I don’t see it having much more weight than other devices with a comparable size (actually it has appr. the same weight as the much smaller FP1).
Bulky it may seem, since the back cover is supposed to be a protective case at the same time, also overlapping the display so it dosn’t easily crash when falling on the display. Makes sense to me. In any case, functionality for me always trumps design (and the latter is also judged very subjectively).

Isn’t that the case? I haven’t heard yet that service providers who resell the phone add or change anything.

Apparently there’s not much of a market for it. Look at Blackberry sales …


I think both is important: Water resistant and easy to open and repair.

I dropped the phone on the ground: I need the easy repair aspect.

I dropped the phone into water: I need the water resistance aspect.


Well, you’re right that having both is certainly better.

I agree with you and @GMG , it is certainly as well a good and useful feature to have it water resistant. As I take my often also to extended outdoor trips I have it as an emergency device in my backpack, so in case i would be within reach of a cellular network, I could use to call for help. That it gets wet is certainly one of my concerns, though for that purpose it is also easier to simply seal it in.

Though, since having both makes designing the openness more complex (and likely more expensive and likely the phone bigger), I understand the decision to favor one aspect.
And since most people spend more time on land than on water, I guess the probability to drop the phone on the ground is higher than to drop it into water, that’s what I meant with it is a wise decision.

1 Like

True, but you can only have one, at least without a giant budget. And even though about 70% of the worlds surface is covered by water I think it’s more likely to drop a phone on the ground…


Given the quality of the FP2, I have confidence in the FP team in doing their best to improve the hardware and design for the FP3. My main request for the FP3 is to work with US networks. Given the size of the market (and the number of ethical consumers who would potentially buy the FP3), it should make sense from a business perspective.

I am curious about what the obstacle to adding compatibility with US network is: does it require additional hardware? software? or is it a business concern?


Basically, different hardware, different certifications, new distribution/service/support networks etc. See:

Thanks, the explanation was thorough and very helpful.

Are there any financial transparency documents available? I can’t find it on the website, and that would help understand the outlook for FP future development.

1 Like

How about just upgrade the modular hardware in the already sold FP2 before of thinking of creating a FP3 ? Talking about obsolescence and reducing waste…


If you’re asking that question, you may also be interested in this topic:

Part of the discussion there already goes into whether there should be ‘refreshes’ of FP2 modules, or whether there needs to a fundamentally different design iteration.

If this is true, I’m really disapointed to have been trapped in this big marketing gag called FP2

The modularity of the FP2 was always promoted first and foremost as a way to repair your phone easily.

1 Like

Yes, but:

This strategy absolutely works against the Idea of reducing waste due to obsolescence. At the end of the day - and I am very sorry to say that- fairphone is not any different from Samsung or Apple launching a new model all year. With the only difference that fairphone also sells parts. Parts of moderate quality and blurring this fact with all this community saving the world stuff and workarounds.

I’m really okay with the fact that the fairphone cost more than an average - comparable - phone with all the work you do to produce it fair I’m more than happy to be able to buy such a product but I except a certain quality standard, fixes for issues (and not just bloody workarounds), even when it’s waiting for an updated hardware which is easy replaceable (haha!).

This is not about the outdated OS, the bulky phone, poor Bluetooth or other issues due to a lack of quality, it is about low specs hardware that -obviously- will not be upgraded and will not motivate the users to keep the phone but just throw it away in about 1-2 years because the FP3 will still be produced fair! What a joke.

At this point I just feel stupid for have been so naive to believe this Company really tries to change something a couple of month ago, but thank you for disillusioning me.

It’s not a strategy to not upgrade modules. Unfortunately sometimes idealism is restricted by reality.
Maybe a future FP will be modular enough to be upgradable indefinately, but right now it’s simply not possible yet. Fairphone created the first ever modular smartphone - of course it’s not perfect yet!

With the exception that Fairphone still works on software upgrades for a device they stopped selling over a year ago and will continue to support old devices. They are still trying to find creative ways to get spare parts for the FP1 even though no manufactory will produce them anymore.
They are doing all they can to make sure that FP1 users don’t have to buy an FP2 - although selling FP2s is the only way for them to make money. So how exactly are they “no different from Samsung or Apple”?!

Where did you get that info? All we discussed here is that the upgradability of FP2 modules has it’s limit, but nobody ever said that the hardware will not be upgraded at all. All we know so far is they are working on an upgrade for the camera module.


Of course it can not be perfect, but it should provide a minimum of reliability which is just not the case.

I have also doubts about fairphone willing to improve the FP2. If you look on the different topics where users have got problems, you can just find walkarounds seeming just beeing that, and not some kind of report about an issue which should be fixed - or at least there aren’t signals that FP is taking this as a issue they could fix. Is there somewhere a transparent and official list of issues concerning the hardware which will be fixed in a future model or module?

How about improving the existing model instead of experimenting on a complete new one every 2 years?
You have a basic structure with modules right? I can not imagine that there is no possibility to improve the spare parts which are built in atm. Building ONE System which Parts (Motherboard included) still have the same compatibility to each other - this is modularity which provide a long term use! This could even be cheaper than building a new one.

And this is what I thought when I bought the FP2 - I mean okay, the specs are not the best, the camera is apparently bad and the battery lifetime is poor but hey, it is built with modules wich can be upgraded - what seemed obvious to me but yes, today we have another situation.


you. For me, this sounds pretty much like “Hey, we never promised anything, so stop expecting”.
A official statement on this point would be grate. Furthermore it would help gaining some faith in the willing of FP to create better, fairer, less polluting product in long term because this is all we have at this point - faith.

You can only talk about your Fairphone, but most work without any issues. Why do people keep making this mistake?

This is a community forum, not a channel for official FP support or documentation.

I’m not aware of any hardware issues that require a module upgrade. All the known hardware issues are limited to a number of phones and are fixed by a module replacement. Maybe the production quality control could be improved to limit some of these issues.

These are the ones I’m talking about:

As I said they are working on an upgrade for the camera module. They are not working on a new phone - at least not that we know of. So where do you get the 2 years from?

Yes, Fairphone doesn’t promise things that they can’t promise. They are not idiots. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t still try.


With the exception that Fairphone still works on software upgrades for a device they stopped selling over a year ago and will continue to support old devices. They are still trying to find creative ways to get spare parts for the FP1 even though no manufactory will produce them anymore.

Yes, but in terms of software version, others are far superior: The Samsung Galaxy S5 was sold from April 2014 (4 months later than FP1) and currently runs Android 6. The Samsung Galaxy S4 was introduced in April 2013 (almost a year before the FP1) and runs Android 5 today. For the FP1, the best we can hope for is 4.4. And talking about software longevity the crown certainly belongs to Apple: the iPhone 5, released in 2012, runs the very latest iOS version. I don’t want to say that Apple is good, there was lots and lots of news on terrible working conditions and several suicides at their manufacturer Foxconn. But that’s because Apple is greedy and they need extremely high volumes in short time. Still, their phones are usable for quite some time.

And regarding spare parts availability: Just consider the constantly sold out Display Assembly of the FP1 which will probably never become available anymore.

Fairphone needs to seek deeper partnerships with electronic service providers and continue the route of open source and also open hardware. In Austria, for example technosert (http://www.technosert.com/) is an electronic service provider that experiences a stunning growth rate. They produce almost any electronic device and claim superior longevity of their products in the field. They offer modification and repair services in addition to design, development, prototyping, etc.


Samsung et al can afford this, yet stop support still way too soon to sell new devices. Same with chip producers like Qualcomm. Apple supports still a bit longer, but also 4-5 years is still not good enough. Google only guaranties approx. an 18 month upgrade window. Even if FP2 will get Android 6, this will buy rather little time. In the long run, FP will depend on community projects or will need to do porting by itself - and if security updates stop, and the SoC is left behind by Qualcomm, you are sooner or later fu***ed. For real longevity, you need something for mobile, what only Gnu/Linux provides for desktop machines. And this means: FP has to find a way without Android.