yes off course, i referred to FP project in that case.
Apple’s device, for example, are absolutely super expensive in matter of fixing ( and not only)…
They should call instead of iphone, unfairphone for many point of view
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.
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.
your reasoning is well argued and clear! Thank you.
however it seems to me to be a certainty that if I buy an FP3 or FP4, fairphone as a company will push me in a few years to buy the FP4 or the eventual FP5 respectively.
This is the trend that I see and that nothing seems to deny
There’s only so long the core module can be maintained be that 5 years or whatever and hence a new phone is developed around a ‘new’ SoC. Along with that are new modules 5G, WiFi-7 etc and they are not easily changeable within the same basic structure.
So we have a new phone.
If you are happy with the specs of the old phone you keep it as long a you can. I have one ten years old (not a Fairphone).
My old phone didn’t have WiFi calling and I have no network coverage where I reside so a new phone was useful. Being made with Fair traded materials etc made it must have.
So are you saying it’s not so much the FP4/5 that is the problem but that you don’t think your FP2 is going to last as long as you would like?
Do you really think it’s a working business option for Fairphone to keep the FP2 on the market. I’m sure if they thought it was they would have done so.
So it’s on the next iteration of this project of finding uses for Fairly traded minerals. After all that was the starting point not pampering to the usability and repairability of the consumer.
So the production line keeps it head above water and us consumers go under a little.
We can’t all float on the labour of others, some of us have to be the raft or holding up the sinking ship.
If you can hold out wait for the FP5 6 or 7 if they float you way maybe.
Anyway us holders of Fairphones clearly have our heads above some of the mire, or at least a nose.
thanks for reasonable answer.
Yes i desired a phone with fair trated materials and without planned obsolescence. and it is not a whim of a single consumer , but a different vision of production ( many you are confusing my post as a request for the complaints department, minimizing the problem; and yes as a consumer i can only ask for this and and choose to give my money to one company instead of another.)
i already answer to that question before: we don’t know, they surely believed so.
but the question regarding sustainability is social and ecological in the same way the two things go together, it is now clearly understood.
from the official balance sheets, it is clear that some were compulsory choices? and if this is not shown, doubt is reasonable.
(if it had been a mandatory choice they would have over-advertised it - which they did in the step between 1 and 2-).
it is simple logic.
I’m pretty sure I’ll buy a new fairphone, but I believe even more new, even more sustainable projects are possible and necessary if we really want to change our impact on the planet.
Maybe i’m a dreamer, but i’m not the only one tra là là.
To be true, I am completely disappointed in my FP 2. The trouble began with a camera problem only some weeks after the phone being delivered (jan. 2019) but luckily the problem could be solved with an update. Then I had problems with spontaneous reboots and poor battery power from the very beginning. The camera focus works unreliable till today. Since several weeks phonecalls are only possible with a hands-free-device due to the fact that the microphone is broken (and no sparepart available). Unfortunately and unnecessarily the bluetooth mode has quit any service some days ago and so my phone has lost any worth for me :o(((
I loved my FP 1 but I am completely unhappy with the successor and have to make a quick decision for my next mobile. I’m afraid it won’t be another Fairphone…
Thanx for your answer. Concerning the buy of a new FP4 I still have to deal with the problem of the long lasting delivery process. And besides I’d rather look for a phone with a headphone jack and LED indicator. So my choice will be a refurbished one, I think. The second best way to buy a “sustainable” phone…