Well for the FP2 there are options to run partially open source OSes, but the FP2 “is” not open source.
FP Open OS is just FP OS stripped from the proprietary G%§$e stuff. Removing that is not hard work and doesn’t require much community input. Sure if there was more to developing Open OS then community input would help, but to make that a reality would also require many-times more effort from FP devs and it doesn’t seem like the team is big enough for that yet.
But for people who really want an open source OS with community development there is #software:alt-lineageos, #sailfish and all the other #software:alternative-oses.
Thank you very much for your replies.
I think now that I’ve misunderstood Fairphone’s plans.
I see that you focus on social (and partly economical) sustainability, but not on ecological: To guarantee longevity of an electronic device, one must guarantee support for software, especially if it’s a device containing private personal data.
But in my opinion, every company relying on proprietary software will sooner or later have to stop software support. That’s why it’s so important to make software open source: The community itself can then maintain the software.
I for my part heavily consider buying an iPhone when my FP1 dies: This guarantees me 5 years of security updates. Another possibility would be Purism if their crowd funding succeeds. Or a second hand device supporting Lineage OS. I don’t know whether the FP2 will keep its promise to be a long lasting phone (“the phone to last”, yes, this is a promise). If it does, I will buy a FP3 when it’ll be available.
This is a community forum. You are not talking to Fairphone Employees here.
Sure, one day G%§$e will decide (out of the blue) that new Software is no longer supported on the FP2 - then everybody will have to switch to Lineage OS & Co.
So because FP doesn’t come with an Open Source OS by default you switch to one of the biggest enemies of the whole FLOSS movement? Ironclad logic!
You can get a second hand FP2 with Lineage OS.
You can’t promise something you can’t keep - so no it’s not a promise. I can promise you though that unless you are a time-traveller you’ll never be able to buy a mobile device that was proven to last at least 5 years and can expect it to still last that long from the time you buy it.
Thanks for the article, I’m not really surprised that Apple does such things. I have to apologise for my rudeness. I was talking about the iPhone with respect to software updates. I did not write it that way, this is a mistake of my part. In fact, I oppose proprietary software where I can…
Back to the topic: Besides attacking me in a quite impolite way, you haven’t said anything about the pointlessness of a “sustainable” phone without open software. One could easily say the attribute “sustainable” is a lie… Of course, Fairphone 2 seems to be better. I forgot about the refurbished phones. These appear to be the most ecological and sustainable phones available right now.
If you advertise something as “built to last” on the front page of your website, you are giving a promise. You don’t have to say “I promise”, or “I swear”, you can also imply a promise. This is imho what most companies do, and there’s nothing bad about that.
I own a FP1U which I bought about 3 years ago for the only reason that is was made to last and sourced ethically. I have just learned that Fairphone no longer supports their first products and is encouraging users to purchase the second generation of phones. In what way is this ethical? It seems to defeat the core mission of the organisation, at least on paper. I no longer can recommend the product to friends. The suggestions to find solutions in the community is a lazy and unacceptable response from the executive. Please look at your practices. So far you have proven to disregard the longevity of your first product, and with it, your credibility. What a shame.
Sorry to hear that of course. And - as the topic of this thread shows - you are not the only one.
Please take some time to read a bit of the discussion in this thread and try to take a look at this decision from the company’s standpoint.
For a start some points I had to think about myself, when being informed of the end of support for my FP1 (including some info I found here): What goot is sticking to a lost product (e.g. the chinese company that produced the phone is out of business) and holding high principles, when this might lead to going out of business or at least having less chances to take the project further with the next - modular - phone.
Thanks Bert for taking the time to respond. The question for me has to be one of ethics and trust -how willing a company is, one that profiles itself as ethical, to place business before principles. If it survives by prioritising business, well it will be just another company but not an ethical one. Seems to miss the point entirely. I understand that these are difficult times for businesses but would you support a charity that goes off-mission simply to survive? I would not. Now I am left with a redundant phone with less support and sustainability than if I had purchased a standard phone. Fairphone has missed the point entirely.
That is simply not true. Fairphone supported their first phone way longer than any smartphone manufacturer does with their phones. The perceived long-term support of Samsungs and iPhones comes from third party manufacturers and, in the case of Cyanogen Mod / LineageOS updates, from the respective communities of developers.
In conclusion this means that the only way in which FP1 is less sustainable is because only 60,000 devices were produced and this amount is too small for third party manufacturers and significant community developer efforts.
What is your concrete problem at the moment with your FP1? Which part is failing? Maybe we can find a solution here on the forum.
You are right in a way of course. I would not support a charity betraying it’s mission just to stay in business.
In this case on the other hand, the mission is followed through.
I would rather compare it with a charity, that is still spending money where it can not support the goal any more. If they do so just because many people are emontionally involved with that special task, while the money could achieve something pursuing another task, that would be a waste of my money.
Here’s what I understand happened:
The FP1 was a generic phone off the shelf of same chinese manufacturer.
That manufacturer has gone out of business since.
For the SOC they used, they had to learn, they never could reach an agreement to get the source code; rendering it virtually impossible to develop software beyond the Android 4.2 stage.
As after 3 years many phones are not working any more, being broken beyond repair etc., the number of FP1 still used has shrinked considerably (so I would guess).
Getting any manufacturer to produce spare parts for FP1 like the display or batteries would have required to order way more pieces than could be expected to have need for. At the same time the prices for those spare parts would have to be unreasonable high.
Having read about the end of support for FP1 myself: once after I calmed down and was able to put my frustration aside, I came to the conclusion, that it is better to follow the path with the FP2 and the modular concept. Using more resources on the outdated FP1 (in vain), would be a waste.
Well, no one has to agree on that and it might not even be completely correct, but one should really think about it.
You might take a look at this shorter thread (just 7 postings so far) as well:
I just wanted to find out if it makes sense to update to Macadamia 1.9.9-pre3 or if it is better to leave my FP1 with Kola Nut 1.8.7.
I found the sticked thread about the Macadamia pre3 version, which suggests that it has some flaws. And I found more than one year old posts about some other community based versions. But the comparison is quite difficult.
Is the Macadamia 1.9.9-pre3 actually the latest and best version of the stopped attempt, including all community-based Versions?
And how is the security level of Macadamia compared to Kola Nut? I mean will be definitely higher. But is it rather much higher or just a bit higher? If compared for example with the FP2 security?
Would you update?
Just take some time reading through this post thread - if you haven’t done so already.
There are quite a few postings on that behalf.
E.g. the differences between FP1 (being off the shelf of a chinese manufacturer, that has gone out of business since) and FP2 (a “homemade” and modular design) and the lessons learned from the problems with FP1.
The FP2 is designed by Fairphone so they have more control over it & better opportunities to support it. The FP1 was a first attempt at being fair, and while it was fair to the people who mined the tin and tantalum, it could not be 100% fair to everybody yet.
This has nothing to do with the lack of batteries. That was and is the most simple and main reason for people to (have to) abandon their beloved FP1.
And FP knew this timely: when I bought two batteries last year I was only allowed to buy two; there must have been a reason for that …
Happily tit looks like hose batteries will last me some time: they are a far better quality than the version 1 batteries (higher capacity, no charging issues, still same capacity as a year back, while I used three (!) of the version 1 batteries in 2 years time (and often had issues with all of them).
Long story short: at the time FP knew (approx) the demand when they ordered the version 2 batteries and they should have ordered (4 times??) more.