Fairphone 2 - list of news coverage and specifications

2015-07-20 14:00

it was ~600 on july 16th. FP2 skyrocketting like FP1 back then…


Hello Ben,
with “fail” it was meant the aspect of the OS, not the whole phone, maybe formulated a bit provocative. Whereas, the OS is one of the important ones, like k.o.-criterion. Better could be, if users would have a choice between Android and another OS installed from the beginning.
If the user can change the OS, it is not that worse. With this possibilty, many/ most of the users could probably get along with this.
The selling numbers of Android/ Iphone/ WinPhone are all higher. What do selling numbers tell us?
In the FP2 I see a huge step into the right direction.

Yeah, FP-Team (@anon90052001) - don’t forget to make FP2 design as unique/recognizing as possible:

  • the white frame of the FP1 is exellent! I don’t know, how many FP I have seen within seconds, during walking through the streets of Berlin!
  • color concept and distribution of FP1 is very good/unique: what/black/silver with a good ratio, especiall if looking from the side
  • place the FP-Star AND also your FP-Logo at the back-cover!
  • at least the star and if possible also the Fairphone-letters-logo on the front (small is better than without!)

Maybe again make a poll about this if not decided yet?
Where/when we can choose the back-cover, as you mentioned there will be various available?

Cheers, Robert


@ben: Maybe you can share some of the interesting things of the presentation and your personal opinion after your FP2-hands-on, if not done elsewhere?


I’ve written a short report of the community event in Amsterdam which was probably similar to that one in Berlin. That said, I would also be interested in what @ben has to say about the event in Berlin.

1 Like

@therob, @jftr:
I shared my report from the Hands-On here:


too bad i couldn’t come, i prefer ‘holunder’! disclosure: posteo.de also offers a decent mail service. reliable, cheap & secure.


2015-07-21 11:30

1,000 / 24 h : that’s not bad!


Do you only count weekdays? IMO it’s the 6th day already. Still impressive, especially if one has the goal of 15k until November in mind.

i meant well over 1000 within 24 hours. i won’t keep track of days. it’s too tedious. but FP2’s start is impressive, as you say

the contracts are like this: you have to get a contract that is 2 years and cost about 20 euro more a month than the same contract for the same phone plus 100 euro, so you effictevely pay around 600 euro for your phone plus the contracts are always with the most expensive mobile carriers because they also pay the most to apple / other manufacturers for “exclusive” rights to their newest models. You can get a loan for the fairphone and get a contract with a better and cheaper mobile carrier and you will pay much less than with the competition.

that said: i also think the price is too high. for that price you can get a full fledged computer desktop. the fairphone should be made for everybody instead of following the same route apple has took with its phones (prices get higher every year, while the manufacturing costs are actually not higher). i think a mobile phone should be around 300 euro and at the same time be produced as fair as possible. i would rather see a little less fancy schmancy high speed tech, but a focus on the most important thing: core functionality. i get it, that fairphone trys to compete with apple and other manufacturers to be state of the art and also the audience that is interested in fair trade is often those, that have enough money to afford this, but as a message it says: you can only buy fair, if you are rich, and that is not a good message to deliver.


at an other closed Topic I asked if Fairphone 2 is rooted again. I also asked the support about this. The answer was, that they can’t answer the question, because it in not decided until now.


1 Like

The main thing here is: Fairphone 2 is getting more expensive in comparison to the first model. However this is exactly due to the fact that manufacturing costs are actually higher.

And they are higher for a reason: Because Fairphone is trying to make it fairer.

One of the above mentioned points where Fairphone is trying to be fairer is the goal to make the phone last longer. Ultimately the fairest phone is the one you don’t need to buy after all. Restricting to core functionality is not the same as getting the cheapest parts available. That would not be fair at all.


you do not get my main point:

i would rather see fair phones for the masses, than fair phones for a few rich people.

you do not know the manufacturing costs of the new model as I do not know as well. i admit that comparing them to apple was a bad argument, but that was born out of frustration at the route they are taking.

i think it is the wrong direction. when other companies like Wiko can produce a very competitive android phone for 200 Euro, why can’t fairphone produce one for 300-400 Euro, that would be 150 more than the other phone, which is completely ok considering its specs and benchmarks. i think the fairphone should focus on building affordable + fair phones.

You have a fair point: Fairness should be inclusive. I totally agree. Unfortunately compromises have to be made in a real world scenario. Fairphone 2 is not 100% fair as is. Maybe compromising fairness even more in favour of a cheaper product would be a good compromise. However I don’t think so: In order to have some impact in terms of showing that a fairer smartphone is possible, Fairphone has to deliver a smartphone meeting certain standards. Saving costs will necessary compromise this (for details read some of the posts in this thread above).

Funny that you would say this. How do you define masses? I’d say “many people”. The most sold smartphones are Apple iPhones and Samsung Galaxy smartphones. Both are very expensive (siginificantly more expensive than Fairphones). So why should this price be too high to appeal to the masses?

Please don’t get me wrong: I totally agree that inclusiveness is important. I’m also not super-rich myself. When I bought my FP1, I would have much rather bought a Motorola Moto G. It is a much better phone for half the price. However I believe in the cause and mission and fortunately was able to save a little in order to afford the higher price tag of a Fairphone 1. Of course not everyone is able to do that and most importantly not everyone is dedicated enough to pay more for virtually the same product just because it is fair. But this is nothing Fairphone can do anything about. Building a fairer phone necessarily incurs higher costs (think of working conditions, etc). Part of the mission of Fairphone is to stop exploiting miners and workers involved in the supply chain. In the end someone has to bridge that gap. And who else would be better to ask than (relatively rich on a global scale) Europeans?

And, last but not least, if Fairphone’s plan works out and Fairphone 2 really lasts twice as long as normal smartphones (5 years compared to the average time of 1.8 years after which users get a new phone), then you will actually save money in the long term by investing in Fairphone 2 because you don’t need to buy a new phone as early.

The most sold smartphones are Apple iPhones and Samsung Galaxy
smartphones. Both are very expensive (siginificantly more expensive than
Fairphones). So why should this price be too high to appeal to the

Smartphones are a luxury product right now, which is simply not affordable to people in countries with lower average incomes. Of course most people in the richer countries can afford 500 Euro, but this is not what Fairphone should focus on in my opinion. Fairphone should focus on creating phones that are affordable for almost everybody. It is possible to produce the phone cheaper and that should be the focus. A fellow Fairphone backer here wrote that he is from Romania and can simply not afford this phone anymore at this price, even though he would like to. I would rather see a slimmed down version (smaller screen size, less processing power) to cut down 100 Euro of the price instead of the price they have now. I maintain my point: 300-400 Euro should be the price that fairphone is at the most aimed at. The only way to maintain a fair model would be to offer one very core cheap model for the masses that is 200-300 Euro with the most important functionality and maybe even more, like the ability to charge this via built in solar panels or by manual power and one model aimed at the more affluent customers, which can be at the pricepoint of iPhones. But if Fairphone continues its 1 model strategy, I would rather see the phone designed for the masses of the world. This is a strategic model and a step back, that is actually a step forward in my opinion, as the “features” the phones offer today like 20 megapixel cameras are just plain advertising, since more megapixels do not ensure better quality.

  1. Production cost: The wage of the company fairphone produces its phone is lower than at the iPhone factory. I acknowledge they try to make working conditions better there, but this is no reason for the high price.
  2. Sustainability: The phone will not last 5 years while maintaining its functionality due to the fact that Android is used, which is artificially more hardware hungry, so consumers are pressed to buy a new phone, with every second version. Also you can use most phones for 5 years as well right now, the problem is just that the users buy a new phone as they would buy a new car, when they have the urge and do not think about the consequences. A car uses much more minerals and electronics, but nobody would like to talk about that.
  3. Mining: The price of the minerals is not at all the problem. Fairphone does not pay extra so workers are paid more. The mineral companies if not operated by criminals have more than enough money to pay their workers a fair wage. The problem is that companies do not use their financial power to make sure that working conditions are good and minerals do not fuel wars and criminal organizations. A lot of the big electronic companies simple do not care where their minerals come from, which has very severe repercussions.

As I said already: You have a fair point.

However I still think that Fairphone had to face many choices and – to the extent we know – made the right decisions. I won’t go into details anymore because I’ve addressed exactly the same complaints and suggestions in previous posts already.

I am not saying the way Fairphone has done this is 100% wrong, I just do not think it is the best way. I can understand the want to show they can produce a better top model than iPhone with their glued batteries and the likes, which I 100% support. I just think that iPhone is not that good and people should understand that they do not need the fastest chip available to run the applications on their smartphone that are actually important.

More finetuning on the phone to ensure a fast OS would in a lot of cases help more than just putting a fast chip in the phone. I am running my Fairphone still at a good speed (after improving the start screen and turning off unnecessary options it runs very fast) and in my opinion this phone is still very good and can do anything the average user needs right now. I would not have minded the upgrade to the next version to have used a processor that is cheaper, so more people can use the phone instead of being able to play some 3D game on the phone.

I would like to see an actual rundown of the costs involved in creating the new fairphone so the customers and supporters can see where the price originates and can discuss if some features could be dropped to keep the price lower.

If they would only be looking onlky at sourcing material fairer and pay workers better, that might be possible. But they also want the phone to be sustainable. Means to to get there are better longvity through high class components and repairability. This is also important for long time software updates as well as third party OS support, things that are very important for many users.

A more expensive device makes it also easier to maintain a healty profit required to keep independent and sustainable: Fairphone cannot affort to sell a phone at loss and at higher prices, there obviously are higher margins.

Finally, it has been often said, a unique design simply costs money. They were only able to sell the FP1 for 330€ because thei bought a ready made phone design.

I do to. But lest not forget there will be a market for second hand Fairphone 1s and second hand Fairphone 2s at some point in the future. It is much more sustainable to produce and sell a long-living device for 550€ that is used by two people (first hand/second hand market) the two produce two phones that are cheaper but not so long-lasting.

Each and every model has to be designed, produced, maintained in software and hardware. Spare parts have to be bought. There is certification etc. In volumes Fairphone currently targets, it is simple not possible to develop and sell more then one model.

I am looking forward to that, too. But i am 100% sure there will be no more changes in features and price for the FP2.

Yes, but the current model is only a little bit older then 1 1/2 years! Fairphone aims for roughly 5 years. And you cannot do that without enough processing power!

I think this exactly the way to go. I think to think fair devices should also be financally accessible, but as i said above, this could be improved by a second hand market, possible with refurbished devices. And there simply is a price that cannot be undercut when trying to fullfil all the goals Fairphone has rightly set for itself. And i doubt this at below 500€ currently.

That might change in the future, but still, a Fairphone will never be as cheap as a Wiko, Huwaei or OnePlus. Simply not possible in a sustainable business.


Matching this discussion: A monumental video urging against the world’s addiction to always have the latest smartphone.


Look at the logo above, I think they abandoned the star… :star: