I’d rather “create a world with my purchase decisions” that is not ruled by internet monopolies.
@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.
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).
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.
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…
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.
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?
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…
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You might be interested where this “horrible misunderstanding” comes from. Please have a look at that:
Are you really surprised about this misunderstanding? How can one draw a clearer connection between this bricked device and the supposed wrong source code?
Again: no. This phone was not bricked while trying to get the source code published by Fairphone working. If you believe so, there is some serious technical misconception involved.
Having the correct source code does not automatically get you a correctly compiled binary. You need to have additional knowledge to configure that kernel and do it right. It is highly likely that even experienced people don’t do it entirely correctly in the very first try. (*) Second, even if you have the correct binary, that does not mean, you get it running on your phone. Think of it: you have a binary on your computer - how do you get it into your phone’s memory and running?
There are other components involved, that are not covered by GPL, like the bootloader. The bootloader and the process of getting the kernel binary into the smartphone’s memory, and then the smartphones hardware to start execute this binary, can introduce any additional obstacles that have nothing to do with what the kernel does. Technically there is some chicken/egg problem: the kernel is supposed to operate the the phone, but to get the kernel running you need to operate the phone too - and this operation is obviously not under the kernel’s control. If something goes wrong in that state, its not the kernel’s fault - the kernel is only the payload here.
It’s only the kernel that is under GPL. But neither Android nor firmware components are. Therefore there is no guarantee that the end user benefits from the free/open kernel - the entire product is not free/open! One might ask what sense does this make - in my opinion it does not make any sense - besides for Google and probably the SOC manufacturers. Google did deliberately design the Android ecosystem like this, for their own interests. If you accuse Fairphone you are barking up the wrong tree. Fairphone can make the product more free/open by providing the necessary product specific information to help the community getting over the obstacles - but surprisingly you voted against this.
(*) Generally speaking, there is no bi-unique relationship between source code and binary; you can derive different binaries from the same source code.
Again: Yes. Of course yes, it’s obvious. And he even told me. He wanted to flash another rom (simplified explanation), in order to find a way to get to the system files backed up from the phone. Who is telling lies now?
Heaven, that’s annoying.
as long as it’s the seller’s property, he may do what he wants with it as well (again Article 17). I never tried to tell, that FP is not allowed to lock up their boot loader. But if I find a way to unlock the bootloader, it’s my right to do it. As stated before, this doesn’t mean that they need to cover bricks due to bad experience or bad luck. And even locking the bootloader OTA, while it is already your property is probably still legal, but really mean.
(and all the other statements related)
You might be right. And I fear, you are right. No one but Fairphone can prove it for now.
The only way I see to support the community getting this job done is by using my skills: Business knowledge and a fairly acceptable knowledge of human and customer’s rights.
Which is following:
I recommend people to ask for a proof of the correctness of the “delivered” code, according to the commercial laws. Even in case this is somehow covered by GPL to our disadvantage (which I also don’t know @Patrick1):
A. they need to prove that they did right (I already posted the law text above).
B. it’s a statement on it’s own if enough people ask for it.
And I am just giving a general recommendation to everyone who likes to have privacy on his phone not to buy the FP3 yet. My wife, who was supposed to get this phone is bond to a medical pledge of secrecy and therefore not allowed to share her Data with others (including Apple and Google). So, it’s not only a personal fetish but obliged caution in my case. Yes, not a lot of medical staff (and nurses, caregivers, midwifes) take care of privacy as soon as it comes to smartphones, scheduling appointments and making phone calls or even using Whatsapp and skype to talk to their customers (wtf).
@Patrick1, if you have a better option for my wife than a de-googled Android device and using local open source software, I am glad about a serious advice (PM).
The key here is the interpretation of “preventing”. I think most users agree that a manufacturer of a mobile phone may place warranty restrictions on users that (try to) run a non-standard OS.
As for actually stopping tech-savvy users from trying to do so anyway, manufacturers have a choice to make. On the one hand they should make sure nobody accidentally bricks a phone just by toying with the exposed settings, if they had no clear intention of replacing the operating system. Some safeguards against accidental software corruption and warnings about warranty when someone overrides these safeguards are in place.
On the other hand a manufacturer should respect the right to own and repair the device. Using sophisticated DRM techniques to prevent third party operating systems from running on the hardware at all cost is arguably (and I really mean arguably!) not within the spirit of ownership.
But this brings another interesting point: security. If users have a mechanism to replace the operating system, the core bits of the software, then what can malicious third parties, hackers, do with the tools implementing this mechanism? Consequentially, whatever mechanism Fairphone would offer or document to flash a custom OS has to be 100% airtight, not permitting e.g. installation of malicious software in the existing Android installation or the extraction of privacy-sensitive data from my device.
This security angle puts quite some responsibility in Fairphone’s hands. I personally don’t believe in “security by obscurity”, so simply making no technical comments on OS flashing would make me skeptical about the security of the phone. But whatever mechanism they engineer must be carefully vetted.
The bootloader comes up regularly in the discussions about alternative OSes, as it is a major determinant to whether you can run custom code (which can do basically anything). The security model for the bootloader specifies that when the bootloader unlocking process is performed, data on the phone needs to be wiped to avoid unauthorised access to any data.
Individual vendors may also implement other measures in the bootloader to avoid untrusted code being run. Whether the primary reason is device security or something else (e.g. not wanting to deal with warranty claims caused by messing with the system) is something only the company will know.
Regarding bootloader unlocking, two comments come to mind:
- If I recall correctly, motorola devices require an IMEI-dependent unlock code that you can request from their support. The portal that allows you to request the code makes you agree to certain terms that include acknowledging that your warranty is void. When the device is unlocked, the boot animation changes to clearly indicate that the device may have been tampered with and that data may not be secure. No secretly changing things on someone else’s device (although I’m not sure that can’t be worked around), but it also looks like they want to make it clear they take zero responsibility from that point onwards and that you’re on your own. It will be interesting to see how Fairphone will act in this regard (as the unlock codes for Fairphone appear to be IMEI-dependent as well, the idea may be for support to log the IMEIs in requests for unlock codes).
- There have been some reports by people who visited a Fairphone community event that the bootloader would be locked as part of licensing conditions for Google components, with a fee payable for each unlocked device. Apparently this fee was factored into the FP2 price, but is being handled differently for the FP3 as the vast majority of users has no need for an unlocked bootloader. If all this is true, we don’t know whether this means that Fairphone intends to charge for unlocks, or whether they’ve accounted for e.g. 10% of users requesting one and will hand them out free of charge when requested.
See also the debate on encryption on phones and whether or not backdoors should exist for law enforcement.
If you return the device stating that the device is not in conformity with the contract of sale, the onus is then on Fairphone to prove that device either is, in actual fact, in conformity with the contract of sale, or that the non-conformity is the result of misuse or such if they intend to contest. As to what conformity is, that’s set out in article 2 of the EU directive you linked to (here’s a link to the English version for those who prefer that). I find it surprisingly difficult to argue that not knowing whether the code supplied corresponds to the binary on the device causes the device to be non-conformant to the contract of sale in manner defined in the directive. What’s worse is that for customers who purchased the device when the source code wasn’t available, it could be argued that they could reasonably have known about source code issue, which precludes claiming non-conformity (Art 2.3). If the legal owners of the GPLv2 code start legal action and the outcome is that the kernel needs to be removed from devices, I’m sure that would render the devices non-conformant.
If anyone wants to go down the route of returning the device because they believe the device isn’t conformant with the contract of sale, note that some European countries have variations in consumer law that require you to notify the seller of the defect within two or three months of discovery. When discovery actually took place or will take place, I find a difficult concept.
In either case … good luck with any of that with this community here …
Yeah, ‘intended’ would have been a better choice of words. Unless they patch it again.
Well, just stating, that the device is not in conformity, might not be enough.
You should add some proof or at least some information, that makes your claim plausible.
And from all I read about the GPL in this thread, that is a real challenge.
You will have to offer some explanation, that things are not working the way they should be when using the published source code. And that - according to my understanding - takes real expertise and not just the claim “You did wrong!”.
That’s at least my understanding of some explanations; especially in posting #20 further up in this thread:
Maybe this is an argument for Fairphone to consider the effort involved in opening up or even creating a Google-free OS: I will not buy FP3 as long as there are no reports of successfully running Google-free Android on FP3 - until then, another solution (currently FP2+OOS) is good enough for me.
Well, given how FP claims they value sustainability more than sales (their words I believe are “the most sustainable phone is the one you already own”), you may just have made an excellent counter-argument for them against releasing FPOOS for FP3.
Don’t buy that phone, thats what i tell everyone how ask me about my FP3, it feels wrong to use it, i wish i had never buy it.
I will never buy again a fairphone where is no google free alternative os avaible.
I wish i had return the phone as i was possible
The performance of the fairphone company in this case is underwelming