You can save space. In such small cases like smartphones, such slots make up a lot.
By the way, I’d like to add another requirement: very robust (IOW: industrial grade) connectors. I just have problems w/ my toshiba notebook where all USB connectors now have loose contact. Smartphones usually have only one - and if the usb slot its broken, you can the throw it away (I doubt anybody seriously replaces usb connectors in smartphones)
The logic is already in the SOC, so it doesn’t matter anyways. The only external parts are PHYs and slots. I doubt (haven’t checked) that combined slots are more expensive than two separate ones (actually, should be way cheaper). And I’d guess there’re even combined PHYs, that even can detect the card type - maybe even 2 in one chip, or integrated in the socket.
Depending on whether it’s still under guarantee, you could just order a new bottom module for the FP2 for €20. Don’t get me wrong, I think using durable components is a very important feat, but equally you can’t avoid all defects. FP2 succeeded very well in having a repairable design imho, and I’d personally really like to see this continued in the FP3 and subsequent phones.
That would include writing new drivers for all the components and the SoC is not really the weak point of the FP2. The week point rather seem to be Google’s dumb upgrade restrictions.
If they make a new main board with a different SoC, they can in the same go make a smaller screen and further improve the modular overall design.
In the end, I think it is also a question of customer “confusion”: Which modification is enough to justify a version jump from (Fairphone) 2 to 3? Is it simply a different SoC, while the rest of the phone stays exactly the same? Or do other qualities of the phone also need to be modified to make the change recognizable for customers?
What I don’t like at all is the “alphabet confusion” Samsung creates (links to Wikipedia): Samsung Galaxy A, C, E, J, On, S, Y. In many cases they even have a 2016 and 2017 edition (or 2015/2016). One aspect that shouldn’t be forgotten in this regard is the aftermarket. The many versions and models make the smartphone landscape extremely fragmented and hard to maintain for community developers.
Just a side note: The iMX is originally by Freescale (US) and came to NXP when they bought Freescale. Some months ago Qualcomm decided to buy NXP and if no miracle happens the iMX will come from an US Firm again.
Most of it should be supported by mainline kernel, so it’s mostly just writing a new DTS and config for the new base board. Pretty much daily business for us kernel hackers.
What’s the big problem here ?
Take a recent android tree, put in new kernel (w/ board specific config) and new mesa.
Can’t be that big deal.
That would imply other changes, eg. new case.
IOW: a really new device.
Simple: When modules aren’t fully compatible anymore.
I’d call the variant w/ just new baseboard 2.1.
Simple: within each generation, the individual components are versioned separately.
Eg. if the cam module is upgraded, it will be version 2.
The only thing that might require some more thoughts is proper module probing
(if the modules dont already come w/ some generic identification mechanism, eg. a tiny i2c eprom, etc). But that’s all solvable, once the specs are on the table.
I’ve been using LineageOS for a few weeks now and it works quite well. There are some issues but I had issues with the original OS as well. If you are willing to experiment a little bit and flash LineageOS than you can have Android 7 right now.
Yes, but not for Android Updates, that is for sure!
Now, as an Fairphone owner, but also being hungry for power and Android Updates, the FP 3 definitely needs a new processor. There is no guarantee, but it should be state of the art at release time. Throw in three or four GB ram, a better camera module and LTE on both slots — done. The more I think about it, it’s like the S models at Apple. The new slim case, the display… all great with the FP2 already, keep them ans the battery for compability . If they can keep some more modules compatible, the better.
Probably just design a new main module and a new camera module might already do the trick! All FP2 owner could just exchange the mainboard, if they want to, but they have not to! And if all modules of FP2 and FP3 are compatible with each other, you don’t get into trouble with spare parts as with FP1…
Essentially Fairphone should base the next generation on the FP2 to minimize loss in manpower, parts and support. Should the FP3 be a completely new design I would even bet on failure of the company, as the support for FP2 will then most likely face the same obstacles as it did for FP1. Too few customers to enable further production of spare parts and batteries and no more software updates, as the number of working FP2 is shrinking.
The modular concept is a good one and any further steps should build on the same foundation, not just on the same idea.
You are right here of course. The FP3 obviously will have to have a new mainboard and another SoC.
That’s not what I meant.
I meant to refer to the dimensions with regard to display, battery and the modules.
If you own a FP2 and your cover or display breaks or ýour camera module or your headphone jack, you should be able to use the same modules that are available for the FP3 by then. Fairphone should aim to prevent the necessity to stock spare parts for two production lines.
At least until they have sold enough phones to guarantee all owners of a Fairphone availability of spare parts and accessories for a long time.
Sorry for not being more clear in my previous post.