Manufacturers probably want average users to believe that they need to buy a new phone to have a new OS. Basically because they SPEND money on developping an OS, and GET money on sending new devices.
With usual mainstream manufacturers, I’m used to have to rely on communities for updates.
For my Desire HD, HTC provided versions up to Froyo (2.2). Today it’s running KitKat (4.4), but only thanks to an alternative ROM found on XDA.
I would really love if FP could be different, but is that likely ?..
What makes me more optimistic is ourselves as a strong community.
My kid’s 2011 Samsung Galaxy SII is happily running Android Lollipop thanks to CyanogenMod, and I know there exists a Marshmallow version for it as well. However I believe that OS upgradeability should be firmly integrated in FP’s ambition for longevity and sustainability.
I think of it that way - and forgive me if you don’t find the comparison suitable - A 2007 Windows Vista laptop can usually run Windows 7, 8 and 10.
It’s just what I was seeing in the forums so far. There is discussion about an open source version of fairphone os coming but nothing about android 6 at all. Coming from a software development background I know that maintenance is the most important part of costs so I can image that fairphone doesn’t have the resources to work a lot of keeping up to date with Android versions so I’m pessimistic for now.
Maybe it would be an option to charge for a separate maintenace contract that includes android updates? That could cover at least part of the development costs on the fairphone side - the only question is if enough users would be ready to pay for sth. like that.
Let´s face it: we´re paying a premium for a phone with no discernable software update roadmap. We decided to bet on the commitment of Fairphone not only towards a fair and sustainable supply chain but also towards a sustainable approach with regards to software and security updates. Currently the latter looks like it isn´t forthcoming any time soon. Which I regret very much. So much in fact that I have been thinking very hard about purchasing a Nexus phone - which at least has a reliable software update path ahead of it. What a shame - I thought I could have it both when purchasing my Fairphone 2.
I also wish there would be a clear road map for future OS, and that Android 6 would come rather sooner than later. But I couldn’t complain about security updates. After all, v.1.2.8 included Android security fixes until March 2016, so in that regard the FP OS is quite up to date and Fairphone is doing a good job.
Well, it’s only four months ago, that the first FP2 were delivered. We just had an update of the OS. Don’t you think that it’s a bit too early to start complaining about the lack of updates?
I sold my Fairphone and i’m a really happy with my Wileyfox Swift now. Fast and latest stable Android (Cyanogenmod).
Fairphone is a good idea, but i’m not willing to support this (in my pinion) Marketing-Company.
Mod, i know the difference ;).
I am mainly stating that I am very worried about the lack of a roadmap with regards to software updates. I do understand that software development resources may be constrained compared to other vendors.
Yes, I agree precisely to this very point. A roadmap would also be in line with the transparency goal of Fairphone as a company and could be an important element for building up trust into the real-life sustainability of the FP2 product
Thank you for putting it much more succinctly than I did in my previous post. A transparent software roadmap could also include pointers on how to initiate and foster a CyanogenMod implementation for Fairphone. Which in turn would enable a community - based software update lifecycle for the device.
[quote=“keesj, post:57, topic:9585”]
At this point I don’t think we can really talk about 99% that would require one of those glass balls to do predictions and I can’t find a working one. I would first like to see Qualcomm release a 6.0 port for the msm8974 and continue the discussion from there on.[/quote]
@keesj Marshmallow for the MSM8974 (Snapdragon 801) is out and apparently Android N too. Can we continue the discussion now? On a more serious note: What are the chances now that the FP2 will receive Android 6, and what is the approximate time frame?
If I just would have time to do it, I would certainly start compiling the newest Android. As for me, I don’t need any of this fairphone os stuff. Privacy impact… Just look at the permissions and the developer and you know if it affects your privacy. I prefer open source, but I don’t want to miss the Google Play store.
I don’t understand, why so much effort is put into fairphone os and not into getting aosp, that means a stock Android working on the device. If other users don’t want to flash Google services, fine.
If some modders can compile a kernel with android n for other devices with this Qualcomm chips, it should not be that hard.
“Some modders” don’t have to officially support an OS. So my guess is that it’s not too hard to compile a higher Android for FP2, but everything that comes with it (official support, bug fixes…) is too much. Remember that Fairphone has to guarantee the OS to work on every device in every country and in every provider configuration.
While this is definitely true I do think fairphone have to have a roadmap for more up to date versions of Android. Otherwise a device won’t/can’t last as long as planned
But I’m fairly sure they are aware of that fact, but as we know they announce it only if they are sure how/what to do (it)
I absolutely have no idea, but I think the kernel is less of a problem, as many other devices get new Android versions with the same (old) kernel version. But as I said I have no idea.
The most official POSTIVE statement regarding Android 6 I have found comes directly from the Fairphone Twitter account:
“Hi, yes, we expect to upgrade the Fairphone 2 to Android 6.0 in the second half of 2016.”
FPOS is essentially AOSP with only some extras and I don’t think that these additional gadgets are the great obstacle to get Android 6 running. I therefore think that to get AOSP running is essentially the same as to get FPOS running.
And the effort of the last weeks and months before the software update mainly included fixing bugs which were mostly not FPOS-specific (except from the privacy impact bug). So these fixes would also have been necessary to get AOSP fully working on the FP2! Hence, to my understanding, the comparison of priorities should rather be (bugfixes in) Android 5.1 vs. (getting) Android 6 (running) than FPOS vs. AOSP.