While I truly understand this reasoning, it is not exactly to the point.
When it comes to the FP2, I regularly link to this online-article from techcrunch based on an interview with Bas van Abel:
Can Fairphone 3 scale ethical consumer electronics?
The important part in that regard is this:
With the Fairphone 3 he says the company sought to dial down the “radical” modularity of its earlier crack at the concept — so the result is less of a ‘party trick’ smartphone design, as the Fairphone 2 was (he dubs it a “show off” phone) — and more, well, dull but worthy; modularity as a utility that’s there to enable (occasional) repairs.
“You don’t need the phone to be so super smooth in taking apart to be able to repair it,” he says. “Fairphone 2 goes beyond the idea of repairability. It’s more a show off phone in that sense. And that also comes with risks.”
While I am sure, that they did not intend the FP2 to be a show off phone, it turned out that way. I myself disassembled my FP2 quite often (i.e. taking off the display) to show others the concept of the Fairphone and advertise it.
The lesson that unfortunately had to be learned, is, that this kind of modularity does result in lots of troubles. Finally, the bottom module showed itself to be the weakest point. And, as @Alex.A already pointet out, trying to keep this concept alive at all costs would have meant burning money, which a small company like Fairphone most likely could not afford.
Therefore:
The judgement of Fairphone as a company should not based on experiences with the FP1 and FP2, as they - in my opinion - were just finding their way. I felt like a kind of beta-tester with my FP1 and FP2. 
While those two phones were introduced by crowdfunding - thus making it obvious, that one buys a product in progress/development -, the FP3 was the first mode introduced via a press-conference / mass media. And that’s, where my reasoning stems from. 