@Ro_Land_Pickl, I’m in the same shoes: Had the Samsung Galaxy S1 for more than three years and switched to Fairphone afterwards. I am (as many others) disappointed by the lack of possibilities to update or change the OS. I’d love to order a Fairphone 2.
However if I’m honest to myself, I know I don’t need a new phone. The first edition Fairphone is still good for my needs. It would be a waste to buy a new one already. Therefore I will stick to it.
Ultimately this is what the Fairphone (especially the second edition) is about: Sustainability. Using a phone as long as possible is part of that. Of course, if you find someone to buy your old phone, it’s (almost) the same thing.
The new Fairphone may have many nice features (the transparent case, some modularity, etc.). But unfortunately folks at Fairphone don’t really care about software freedom. Since FP2 will run on a Qualcomm platform, the most freedom loving OS, i.e. Replicant, will not be ported to the Fairphone. For me that is a showstopper. I just don’t see why I should spend € 525 on something that doesn’t qualify as a game changer.
If I want to spread happiness in the world, I rather invest these very € 525 in ice cream for anybody’s kids.
It’s a long read, and I think most of you have already read it, but I’m editing it in at the top right now, including some details that are revealed in the blog post.
I think this is a very high expectation. It’s virtually impossible to build a phone that is totally free. AFAIK there is no phone for which all parts of Replicant work even though Replicant doesn’t even have all features of Android.
I agree that it would be nice to have such a phone but I doubt that it’s possible to find all hardware parts that only use free firmware. And then one would need to consider the price of such parts.
Buying ice cream for children definitely spreads happiness but only in the short term. Eventually it might be more sustainable to invest into a phone that goes towards the right direction in terms of freedom (although that’s not the #1 issue that Fairphone wants to address) and change industry in the long run.
@tan Can you elaborate on the underlying (technical) reasons? I was assuming Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch were technically able to work on this platform, although I might be overlooking some details on that. Regarding Replicant the wiki page mentions that Qualcomm is bad for freedom, but lacks a clear explanation. I found one Replicant forum post referring to the news of Qualcomm taking forcing the takedown of Github repositories on the basis of copyright infringement.
Taken this as a given I would conclude that no fully free software operating system would be possible. Distributing mainly free images would only work with participation of Fairphone to provide the neccessary binary blobs. As was mentioned earlier alternative OS’s are being discussed, although I’m very interested to get a sense of the actual possibilities. Can you please indicate if these (practical) restrictions are actually the case?
@jftr Getting free software supported chips is a challenge indeed. To get free software support in a product therefore requires either selecting supported chips or reverse engineering drivers to cope with other chips. This might result in having to select less capable hardware to deliver on the promise on freedom. The EOMA68 project has addressed this issue by offering computing modules which can be replaced as more capable and/or more free hardware becomes available. In that regard I’m hoping Fairphone’s current modular design will allow a different core to be developed on this platform which might be less powerful but more freedom-respecting.
To me changing an industry seems naive, but Fairphone seems able to create a sanctuary where human values are respected in development. Whether you intend to adhere to them in use, or not. (if you like to use Google’s Android, contribute your data to Google, and use proprietary applications, that is up to you to decide).
What mainly bugs me is the lack of an outspoken strategy to deal with this issue.
One technical reason seems to be, that the platform checks the boot loader’s signature (see Replicant blog comment). Another factor is Qualcomm’s system on chip design, where the modem has too much control over the phone. Which leads to the question: why waste time on a system that doesn’t respect freedom in the first place and will never allow more freedom?
(That is what I gather from the Replicant site. I myself don’t have the specific expertise to make such statements.)
@tan Thanks for the interesting link. The GAT04 tackles the issue of the modem by having it seperated from the rest of the system. The modem itself is subject to regulations, so implementing say a software-defined-radio solution is not possible. As it is a ‘black blox’ with a receiving end, giving it broad access to other processes is a bad idea indeed.
I’m hoping that the signature-checking can be turned off permanently for this phone as not to further complicate free software efforts.
@nicorikken A Fairphone which implements the GAT04 philosophy would make me happier than winning the lottery. But that’s obviously clearly over the top. I just wish they had the courage to make better use of the solutions the upstream industry already offers.
A strange strategy to first build up a community around a certain phone and then design a phone that doesn’t target that community anymore because it is, simply speaking, too expensive. What percentage of your current community would buy this phone?
If you’re so modular in design, why can’t you sell a highend and a midrange phone at the same time? If everything is easily exchange- and replaceable you “just” need to swap the expensive parts for cheaper ones.
I think unfortunately that’s a little unrealistic. Fairphone is a small company - developing one phone costs a lot of money. What you are suggesting is technically possible though and it may be something they consider in the future. It would be great to see!
@TheDon that’s quite ‘paradoxal’ isnt it? Fairphone tries to build a phone that lasts. Why use cheaper (not so good) parts which break faster, which in its turn produces more waste …
Battery seems a bit low end. 2800 mAh would be appreciated.
Size is ok (to me). You cannot really satisfy everyone in this matter.
Price is ok (to me), when the phone will really get long term updates (say 5 years at least). I guess, many people overestimate upgrades. I use a 10 year old laptop with a latest Linux, and its still good: stick to the older stuff and repair it…
@apheiner Thanks for your considered reply. Still have a working Nokia N800 here in my drawer. I simply can’t let it go, liked it so much.
Well, that boils done to personal definition, you may calculate that way. However, the positive side of this is the following: I need neither NFC nor wireless charging. So for me, the price would be 525€ and i am happy it is not more. I was just arguing that I do not see NFC as crucial, and wireless charging even less. Yay for upgradable back-covers so you could possible add that functionality while i do not have to pay more then required.
This would have to be done very careful! If you are here in the forums or read some comments you can still here the outcry about no Android Updates, bad Cyanogen support etc. The new processor was choosen to address these things, at least in part. It is a well known CPU used in many top-notch devices (albeit most from last year) that has very good support from Qualcomm and open source android distributions. If it would be replaced, there should be no compromises in that aspect and i do not know how much could be saved here. It would have to be a high to medium range Qualcomm processor which is widely used, offers LTE and good Android Open Source support.
NO! Please not! Some many people using the Fairphone a somewhat old-school: They still use their phone to make calls and call quality is very important to them. Again: software based noise-canceling is simply not on par with solutions using a speciality microphone. This. i believe, would noticable reduce the quality of the phone, without a significant price drop.
Whats enough is up for debate. I do not need the latest flagship processor (would be a Snapdragon 810 or 808 instead of 801), not do i need giganting internal storage (the FP2 has resonable 32GB), nor do i need NFC, wireless charging or a 12MP camera (given that the resolution alone does not make the pictures a tint better). Arguably, i would have been happy with a smaller screen, like 4.7 and lower resolution. But we do, not know if that would have reduced the price.
But I think people expect a kind of quality for a device that should live long. And even the smallest components have an influence here, take for example the less then optimal proximity sensor (i do not care if caused by software or hardware), which leads to a considerable amount of people being very annoyed because they accidently end calls, change phone settings etc while calling (Count me in on that! I really had it and it seriously damaging my experience with FP1.)
I would welcome a price drop: If another Qualcomm processor is as future-proof as the 801 is expected to be and cheaper, yay, i would prefer that! If a smaller screens is possible and would reduce the price, Yay! Lower resolution? Count me in! But i do not want to save on parts i think have been proven to be crucial for longevity or are suspected to contribute to a general, quality experience. Better voice quality and no more dropped calls with the FP2 would be something i look really forward to.
True! But stop giving my excuses for gadget-impulse-pre-ordering/buying ;-).
Thats me as well. Let’s see if we can stick to our goals here ;-).
I do not think that is true. In my impression, they to care, especially some members if the team, it’s just that they have to balance needs and requirements and, to be fair, a free-software-phone is not number one priority. I do think that is a good thing, it allows Fairphone to make progress in other areas. I think it would be great if another (social) enterprise stepped up here and proved: It is possible to make a competitive(!) free software phone. However, there as not been somethink like that since the open moko, with the closed you get probably being Yolla and Ubuntu. Freedom, there, as well stops when hardware drivers (binary) blobs are involved.
How would such a strategy look?
Which would that be?
What features could you spare? What specs could be lower, even considering the target of the device living for 5 years?
Every design has a compromise, here it might be the perceived high price. It is sad this will exclude some people that would like to support Fairphone. I am very excited for the cost breakdown, but keep in mind 525€ already includes the bonus for fairer sourcing of materials, worker welfare, etc.
I think the price is reasonable. Fairphone is a social enterprise now, they do not take donations, but finance all their operation by selling this phones. This includes research, recycling, raising visibility, conflict-free mineral, worker welfare, all not directly related to the specs of the device. And that comes on top of what they need to pay for development (hard-and-software) and maintenance and support. Having a storage of replacement parts etc.
I would love to the phone to be cheaper, but i do not see a lot of room to make it cheaper given all those requirements and the relativly low scale.
I can very well image Fairphone to build upon that model in the future: If the price of components drops (which is to be expected), i might very well be that they reduce the price in the coming year(s). It is also possible to deliver incremental updates to reduce the cost of developing a new model, while keeping some parts, for example, replacing the processor with a slighter faster or simply cheaper but similar powerful chip in a coming FP2,5 model. So there is hope for that.
I agree, some of us do not need a high end phone to play video games or watch full HD videos. We need durability, stability and a responsive OS which may be done with a lower specs phone
the thing is - under current economic conditions: you cannot sell a lot of such devices, because it simply gets too expensive. There are practically no really open SoCs around, just better ones and worse ones. Just like the idea of production in Europe: it would be great, but there is currently no way. Or like the idea of certificates for all sources of metal et al for production… FP cannot solve all these problems.
(BTW: On this linked website, there is also explained, how much the weak Euro changed their calculation. I suppose that this accounts for FP2, too: with a strong Euro, it might be 100 Euro or so cheaper…)
Well then I would say that this phone will not be economicly profitable. If you make a phone with no real up-to-date, high-end features you are just not competitive enough to be profitable. In my opinion the fair-side of the phone alone is not enough to be unique and thus be economicly concurrential.
One issue concerning the relatively large size might also be the modularity.
Many people complain about the large size. Personally I would also prefer a 4.7 inch screen over the now standard 5 inch.
However I’ve just had the thought that the larger size might make modularity easier or maybe even possible in the first place. I can imagine the modular design introduces some small overhead in size because the modules need to be replaceable one by one and the frame needs to be sturdy.
Long story short, Fairphone has obviously poured a lot of thought into the design and there might be many reasons we don’t know about or can’t even imagine why they designed it the way they did. It’s important that we stay critical but we should also trust them to some extent. In the end they are the experts.
Summarizing, the high price (plus some other smaller issues) are getting people upset here.
This has been a very important strategic decision for FP, I hope you considered well how many customers you will lose and how many you will gain, as every unfair company does nowadays. You clearly changed your target: from mid-people who can afford 200-300 euros for a smartphone and make it last long by upgrading software, removing apps, changing distro, correcting hardware (I personally soldered something in my current unfair smartphone, following Youtube videos, to make it last long), the target has changed to higher-class people, who wants to feel eco-bio-fair geeks. What I want to say is that the latter, who wants high specs and top-class features, are used to (unfairly) change their phone quickly.
