English

Don't buy a FP3 yet if you don't like stock android or Google!

I bricked my phone when a tried some treble tricks. It is not kernel related

4 Likes

Maybe you can “unbrick” it with official Qualcomm tools?

To the general discussion:

A company (! FP is still a company) selling a fair phone should be expecting to have “special customers”. And “fair” does not neccessarily only mean fair RAW materials and fair work conditions, but also fair support for e.g. google-free environments.

4 Likes

Which tools are you talking about? Actually I just need stock system image…

1 Like

In a market economy, the Fairphone company gets to decide how they explain their umbrella term “fair”. They decided that at this point that term does not include offering or supporting the development of alternative operating systems, at least publicly.
If you disagree with that, you have the following options:

  • Buy the phone, accepting this shortcoming,
  • Don’t buy the phone, but seek a phone from another company that aligns closer with your requirements,
  • Try and persuade Fairphone (or one of their engineers you happen to bump into at FOSDEM 2020) that supporting other operating systems is a good idea and they should dedicate time/resources to it,
  • Reverse engineer, hack and program until you make it work,
  • Start your own company and do it yourself.

All of these are acceptable options. However, bear in mind Fairphone does not owe us anything other than satisfying the conditions of the open source licenses, and does not promise us more wrt. alternative operating systems. As much as I appreciate the concerns around stock Android and as much as I would applaud a move from FP in this direction, we are not entitled to a Fairphone Open OS for FP3, or even their active support with booting the source code they released.

11 Likes

Wishful thinking / speculation IMHO.

Again, the problem is that Fairphone provided and still provides this support for the Fairphone 2 (albeit not from the start, it took some months back then), so there’s precedence.

That’s the standard the Fairphone 3 is now measured against in this regard.
That users do that seems understandable enough to me, I just don’t get the impatience and undertones of alleging some kind of ill will on Fairphone’s side.

8 Likes

Would be nice by FP to publish timelines of their projects.

https://www.qpstflash.com/

I don’t know if stock firmware is available. Maybe at xdadevelopers?

I was under the impression this was still in the pipeline at FP. You said yourself it took a while with the FP2 as well. Perhaps patience is in order?

2 Likes

True.
Yet, they approach with the FP3 is a different one than with the FP2. And it was publicly communicated from day one.
https://www.fairphone.com/en/2019/08/27/launching-fairphone-3/

This is the phone for all of us who dare to care about what kind of a world we’re creating with our purchase decisions. For all of us who want a great phone that is kinder to people and to the earth. For all of us who believe that care for workers and our planet ought to be a natural part of doing business.

This is our 3rd generation phone. We’ve learned massively through experience, and that’s essential when you’re blazing a trail for which no map exists. We’ve strengthened and professionalized our organization. We’ve built a more stable and scalable company. We focused on further improvement of our product and supply chain, and we’ve worked on expanding our impact and sales.

Sure, they did so in the beginning.
And then there happens the thing nobody thought of in advance and everything gets delayed. The smaller the company, the more likely this is going to happen.
Standard-receipe for annoyed customers. Don’t make a promise, you might have problems to keep.

I’d rather “create a world with my purchase decisions” that is not ruled by internet monopolies.

2 Likes

@hirntot You are quoting from the other thread without understanding and out of context - this in my opinion is far from fair. I totally agree that Fairphone should provide a google-free OS, or support the community to do so - but I don’t like your aggressively demanding approach, this will not help.

3 Likes

that’s quite an accusation you can’t prove to be true. (and don’t use @pigpig’s phone as an example. he tried to install an alternative rom through an alternative way (called treble) in order to copy the original system image. He failed and (probably) bricked his device. this is exactly what I assumed that will happen sooner or later and why I wrote “start melting down your phones” even before I learned that some people already did.)

you got me wrong. And I disagree. I don’t demand any google-free OS and no support. And I don’t think they shoud, honestly. I just expect them to fulfill their part of our contract.
I bought a Phone from a producer who claims to use a Linux-based OS on his device (Android). I learned, that the kernel source code is different for every device (this honestly was new to me. I thought this is similar to computer’s linux), but luckily it still is under GPL.

I am not a super-linuxer, therefore I have to trust the others who say: It’s not possible to know whether FP used this code or another. But the provided code is not working as it is supposed to work.
Now, in my point of view, it’s Fairphone’s duty to prove that they really did publish the right code.

well, you might be right. we will probably never know why FP did what in the end. but still, they might be interested in keeping their community (hey, at least they have one!) satisfied or even happy.
offering an alternative OS takes weeks to months for development. This would be nice, but just nice. Not mandatory.

but publishing the right source code in a reproducible version (this is not a personal wish, this is mandatory according to GPL) or even the system image takes a few hours and even a trainee could do that.
This is why I am really unsatisfied with what FP is doing here. And why I recommend everyone not to buy that phone (yet).

1 Like

I hope that nobody minds that I slightly changed the capitalization of the topic title.

An all-caps “DON’T BUY FP3” is not a good title IMHO. “DON’T BUY FP3 YET” is closer to reality from my understanding.

Although I’d prefer to not have any caps at all. :wink:

And I’m unsure if “we” should irritate “normal” users with this warning. I’m aware that some are irritated by the absence of the Open OS or other alternatives. But I’d rather irritate the “more knowlegeable minority” than the average Joe/Jane Customer…

11 Likes

I agree this issue will not affect the majority of users. I almost feel like it’s a ‘they give a finger and you want the entire hand’ type of situation. Fairphone is doing such an amazing job compared to much larger manufacturers, but still they’re very heavily criticized. Nothing wrong with healthy criticism of course, but it’s hardly fair to hold them to a higher standard you would much larger companies.

5 Likes

Not I did use pigpig’s phone as an example - you did! As an example for Fairphone publishing a not working or wrong source code - and this is just plain untrue.

Your title says otherwise: “… if you don’t like stock android or Google.”

You are accusing Faiphone that they published a not working or even wrong source code without any prove. Instead you claim that Fairphone needs to prove you wrong - is that how you think it works: I accuse you to have stolen 100 € from me, and its your turn to prove, you have not?

You seem to think, if we have the source code, we just need to feed it to a compiler and everything works. If it does not work, the source code must be faulty. But that’s wrong, and you should know so from the thread you are quoting from.

Take this explanation from @calvofl0 for example:

  • having the kernel source code does not mean having a compiled and running kernel. If you are a Linux user, just go to kernel.org, grab the latest Linux release, compile and replace your existing kernel. If you are experienced it is fairly easy, but it is not a trivial thing to do. Now, when it comes to doing the same for a smartphone, it gets a bit more tricky. No one here actually managed to boot the compiled kernel on FP3.
  • The trick seems to properly package the compiled kernel into a boot image, and this seems to be very much device-dependent and it is not specifically documented for FP3.

There are other things to consider in addition to the source code - which contract requires Faiphone to address these?

7 Likes

A statement from Fairphone once in the other first major thread about the unreleased source code expressed that software development wasn’t done in-house.
So as it looks they were truthfully relying on their development partner to “not be cagey” but reality seems to be different. …how come I am not surprised about that… :thinking:

I would not put much believe in this unless the one(s) who have managed to brick their device have very good explanations for anyway being covered by the FP3 warranty regulations according to these clearly written requirements:

Omg, where do have this from? Any serious source or just wishful thinking?
I am afraid consumer rights in general does not cover wishful thinking.

Fairphone initially has advertised the FP2 with “yours to open, yours to keep”. Keeping self repair in mind. Not …yours to tinker with.
They were fair enough to provide these possibilities like an unlocked bootloader [and these left over pogo pins on the back side]. They opened the opportunity to install other OSes beside FPOOS, enable root access. But at ones own risk after all. This was for FP2. The FP3 warranty regulations don’t read much different for me specifically what I have pointed out above.
If you are seriously convinced about your statement I do have to wonder if you maybe by accident got “in touch” with a Fairphone or already have made positive experience with this expectation in the past using other mainstream mobiles so expecting the same from Fairphone. If the latter many of us are surely eager to get to know how positive your experiences were with other manufacturers (repair) service.
Manufacturer regulations and product conditions may change between two steps. What applied to an earlier product does not have to apply to a new product in the very same way.

3 Likes

Sorry, I don’t want to be pedantic. But please present nothing as truth, which you seem to assume!
@pigpig wrote in post 19 that his phone “is bricked” long before you brought up the “melting post 128”.

5 Likes

hmmm. I feel a bit uncomfortable by now, because I feel very strongly misunderstood. I am not sure if people do that on purpose in order to just make me stop or if people really thin that I am just a troll. Therefore: I am a serious person trying to have a discussion here. And I tried to warn people about an unexpected FP policy they might get in touch with, when they don’t like stock android or Google.
Anyway, I am going to stop soon, if the discussion goes on like that.

thanks for your friendly correction. I didn’t know about that fact, I didn’t mean to spread “untruth”, therefore correctet it above:


is this a serious question? Article 17 of the european law states that you may do with your property whatever you want. I did never expect FP or anyone to support me with that, as I stated before. This would be wishful thinking. You may flash, erase, brick or go swimming with your phone (at your own risk of course) and no one can harm you for that.

ah no, I didn’t think about bricked phones. If I drop or brick my phone, it’s obviously my responsibility, not the producer’s.
I am talking about everyone, who bought a FP3, especially those who understand the GPL part as a part of the contract.
It’s a very simple market rule, based on European law: I have a proof of paying 450€ to a company that was supposed to send me a device that contains an open source kernel. And IF I tell them that the phone (or another piece of the contract) was not completely delivered, they somehow need to prove that they delivered what they promised me, according to my undestanding of the European law - and I can’t see the “open source kernel” part and am asking for a proof of it’s correctness. I only asked/guessed that it might be wrong or broken, please be aware of that.

I have no idea how that works with other phone companies since I did never think about buying a new phone from any other company than Fairphone.


and finally:

No worries. you horribly misunderstood and accused me of lies. I forgive you.
Again: I never tried to tell anyone that using the published source code breaks a device. I was shocked when I realized that people were risking to bricking their phone in order to find out why they can’t get this source code working. and this bricked phone is a good example for that.

2 Likes

I do agree considering the treatment of property in general. But your statement was:

This may apply to conventional computer like devices. But speaking of “mobile phones” as we do here, I tend to place them among the field of embedded systems.
Here one may still do with it what he want, but if the manufacturer delivers the device with a appropriate OS and everything is matched, optimized, tested and certified in this form one may try to switch the OS, but the manufacturer need not cover such actions by warranty and imho does not violate anyone’s rights by preventing the option to switch the OS.
Prior to each purchase every products feature ought to be clearly described so customers know what they will get for their money. This should also prevent situations where one may unsuccessfully try to flash his mobile, as the option for re-flashing most sure will not be listed specifically as a product feature. Furthermore if one don’t like Google’s Android he probably is keeping the wrong product in his hands. Expecting the option to some day use the source code to modify and re-flash the phone without Google stuff seems to me a bit too high.

At last I also agree with the explanation from @calvofl0.

So who of the few that were trying to re-flash their FP3 can doubtless say that he done every single step just as proper and precise as the manufacturer to get the same result of a working/booting FP3 mobile?
I am uncertain if the GPL part in this case clearly should put each customer in the position to re-flash the phone with the provided source code. :thinking:
I think there is still much room for verification if the code is incomplete/wrong/broken or the complex procedure of compiling and flashing was not 100% matching.

Sure.
I believe Fairphone is confident that the delivered source code is complete and usable. But consider this, what about Fairphone asking “individuals” what makes them certain that the code seems wrong, broken or incomplete?