Of course a Phone can be designed for more than 5 years, functionally my last mobilphone did its job nearly 8 years, not every new technology is necessary and the smartphone segment has lost most of its innovative momentum.
I think it should´t be the aim of fair phone to stay upgradeable to each new tech-trend, but it should be upgradeable for any useful (in the means of utilitaristicly useful) upgrade.
I can imagine this Fairphone lasting even a decade when its stays as reparable and maybe upgradeable as its stated.
Lets start the Decade-Challange:
Who will be th first to say: "i´ve used my Fairphone for 10 years now, and its still up to date (at least software wise with a future resource minimalistic OS)
I would like to be the one, using my FP1 for 10 years, even without it being up to date. Still I’ve not given up hope: Maybe, as time goes by, Mediatek will release its drivers (see this petition). They can’t hold on to their proprietary drivers for years and years, if they don’t gain anything from it, can they? It would be the same as with medicine, after a reasonable period of time the patents are released and everyone can produce generics!
I think for software - unlike medicine - the copyright lasts as long as for music, movies and such which is something around 50-60 years after release or after death of author. And even then, Mediatek would have lost their copyright but that doesn’t mean that they have to publish their source codes.
That is easy: Fairphone will buy MediaTek in 2019 to produce conflict-free mobile chipsets. Their first again is to release all source code and setup a developer central to support open source developers.
My .02: I really love this design, although I do hope FP1 keeps being produced as the “budget” option.
I’m currently on a Samsung Galaxy S5, and I’d like to make the move to support Fairphone. I need a powerful phone and HD screen, and I want good call quality. It seems like FP2 is going to do a much better job of this, not to mention better hardware compatibiltiy with the general Android community (processor is more compatible).
I hope FP2 is as free software compatible as possible. Software freedom is very important to me. I will probably continue to run Android, but for starters I would like to switch to CyanogenMod, rather than some in-house Android version.
$525 is less than I paid for my S5. I do wish the FP2 could be IP67, but with the modular design that’s a lot to ask.
I hate metal phones. Once they get hot they hurt your hands, they scratch, and so on. Plastic is better! I really wish people would stop pushing for the Apple style of device, where it’s all metal and glossy fingerprint-magnet plastics. Those look fine, but they don’t perform as well as other materials, and I only care about performance.
I’d like to argue against the people who claim we shouldn’t target people who (presumably) don’t care that much about fairness, but do have the money to spend on a phone.
There are not a lot of people who care so much about the morality of their phone purchase that they would buy a phone that is technically sub-standard, perhaps somewhat overpriced and very risky (new company). Those people have already bought a Fairphone. Perhaps there are more of us, who simply didn’t hear of Fairphone in time, but there will not be many.
We could try to convince others that fairness in mining, production, reusability, recycling and open software is really important. However, this takes a lot of time and effort. To convince a lot of people that this is worth it, will be too hard and take too long.
What would be the best solution? To make people choose for the fairtrade option without convincing them in a moral sense. Make a morally superior phone and let people choose to buy it because it is awesome.
This strategy will place less emphasis on the fairness, but can achieve greater goals in doing so.
If people will buy the Fairphone not because it is fair, but simply because it is a great phone that also happens to be more fair - then Fairphone really has a shot at really changing the industry.
Continuing your thoughts: Isn’t Fairphone’s mission to prove that any smart phone, even an iPhone could be produced in a fair way? So I don’t think that it is about the money. Each and every phone must be produced fair, wheater it is cheap or expensive!
That will work, for sure, but only for a short term point of view. If you can’t make that your customers understand fair trade values, they’ll quickly switch to a more “awesome” alternative without thinking it twice. You have to ensure that customers are with you for your core features, not for something that others can do better than you… Because I think we can agree that Fairphone’s main feature is fairness… if don’t, well then I’m getting off this right now…
However, there’s something that Fairphone has already done, and well done: introducing social issues of electronic production in the mainstream mobile phone market. For me, that is the very first victory. In a few years, we’ll see the big phone companies claiming for workers’ rights. Even if they don’t do anything to improve work conditions, it will be a fancy thing for advertising, as people would demand it. I know the goal is far beyond that, but it’s a beginning.
This would be a problem i think. Fairness is the core of the Fairphone, hell it even is the name. For me, it is the most important aspect. Still, obviously, I wan’t a great phone.
I think it is awesome fairphone changes towards more modularity and repairability, but i see all those improvement still based in the on common goal of a phone that is more fair and sustainable.
But it still has to be pursued. The think is, it is possibly not necessary to convince everybody.
I think so. And that means: If Fairphone is a role-model and can prove that, it might be possible to put more pressure on other companies that say: Well we would like to be fair, but that is not possible. This is a very important aspect i think.
To continue my above statement that not everybody has to be convinced: Fairphone can do two things: 1) Prove that is is possible to produce a fair, competitive and desirable phone that is not to expensive for people to buy. 2) Via transparency and researching production buy doing, provide valuable insights other companies do not have or do not want to share.
Then, i hope, vocal minority might be able to use that to push companies like Apple, who very much depend on the association people have with their brand, to increase their own standards. It might even influence legislation. Then every iPhone would be produced more fair, irrespective of every buyer caring about that.
Yes, we can! To me, it is not only the main feature, it is defining what Fairphone is.
I don’t think so. Aiming for perfection is not the problem, but you are right, one needs to know the limits and have a measure of whats good enough to make progress, i guess.
Obviously, and it is not the goal of Fairphone. It would be very bad if a company had 100% marketshare in anything.
I think the strategy of @RL1 would be better in the long run. Like people buying fair trade bananas not (only) because of the label, but because they are the best-looking bananas in the supermarket.
If FP can reach people who buy the phone not (only) because of its fairness, the potential market share of Fair Trade smartphones can increase drastically. If FP only tries to convince the people who are already interested, the market potential is actually quite small.
Of course, the FP has to be fair in the first place. It’s in the name, as you already say. But it should not be the only reason why people would buy a FP. Because then you don’t prove that every smartphone could be produced in a fair way, rather the opposite!
I’m not so sure about that. Here in Belgium, there is a car seller (Cardoen) who’s business model is precisely that: buy cars in EU countries where there’s a discount / “left-over” stock. Then sell them here in Belgium cheaper than the “official” price. Despite elaborate efforts from the car makers, this has been found to be perfectly legal.
Hmm, the S5 is a recent (last year), top-of-the line phone. Spec-wise, the FP2 is no improvement. The S5 is already supported by Cyanogen. The FP2 isn’t (though given the FP2’s hardware, support for Cyanogen is likely to appear). The S5 is also immensely popular. So in practice it should be relatively easy (though probably not quite as easy) to get it repaired, even after official support by Samsung ends, using after-market parts.
Your most fair / sustainable / open option therefore seems to be to install Cyanogen on your S5 and to keep it for a year or so longer.
But I’d like an FP2 as well, even if it’s a bit pricy
Agreed. Interesting fact: in at least one Belgian chain of supermarkets, the fair-trade bananas are actually cheaper than the brand-name (Chiquita) ones! Despite the fair-trade ones actually “looking” better.