Disagreement is perfectly fine, discussion is welcome, but could everyone please cut ad hominem attacks such as the one I quoted? Thank you.
7 Likes
Thx @JeroenH .
[Edit: @erotavlas Please accept my apologies, should you feel, that I have attacked you personally. That was not my intention and might have been caused by the fact, that English is not my native language. I am sure, that we both just want to help and provide correct information.]
My last posting.
I agree to this point:
Now to the point, that we seem to be in disagreement:
The FSFE article states:
The EU-information that I referenced on the directive states:
Still you claim, that the 2 lawyers thtat wrote the article do know the EU-directive better than the EU, that is explaining the directive to the public?
That’s really tough stuff from you, as you happen to know nothing of me, of my profession and knowledge. My reference to the EU page seems to go unnoticed by you.
(I can assure you, that I am at least as qualified as the lawyers. You just have to believe it, or leave it; that’s allright by me.)
Finally to the point, that seems to create the misunderstanding:
The liability depends on one the fact, that “the lack of conformity becomes apparent”.
But it does not say, when this is the case. Not every defect is an apparent lack of conformity, therefore someone has to prove if this is the case. And - as the EU-homepage states - this burden of proof might fall on the consumer and is not always on the seller. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don’t know, if you will find this useful, but I hope it will help those reading in this thread, as that is all I wanted to do.
2 Likes
Are you saying that the second bold sentence proves the first? In my opinion it does not at all. Article 5 refers to Article 3 which speaks about “any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered”. The second quote does not say anything about who has to prove that “lack of conformity” and that it had existed at the time the product was delivered. Article 5.1 defines just a time limit, in essence it says that the seller can’t be held liable beyond the two years. It does not specify anything about who has to prove anything.
2 Likes
So, what’s now the status? Is there an official statement about the making of Fairphone Open for the FP3 or not?
I started with the FP1, now I use an FP2. I ordered the FP3 because I wanted to continue to use an open Android phone. (On the FP2) I never used the stock Android without root, ever. Though I must also admit that I never tried anything else than the official releases by Fairphone, i.e. I had used the factory-rooted Android 4.2 for the FP1 and the alternative Fairphone Open 5, 6 and 7 on the FP2. So call me a coward for not trying FirefoxOS, CyanogenMod/LineageOS, Ubuntu Touch or SailfishOS on the FP2.
But not getting root on the FP3 is a no-go.
Having said that, I know that there are plenty of Android phones out there that come without root access by default. But they can be rooted anyhow. So, why should it not be possible to root the FP3 running the regular non-rooted Android “Fairphone OS” as well?
Also, since Android 8 Google started to make Android updates easier. It was called Project Treble. This kind of makes it easier for Fairphone to update their Android basis as well. When you consider the amount of resources that went into providing Android 4.4 for the FP1 (which never came, except a closed beta), and to get Android updated from 5 to 6 to 7 on the FP2, having Android 9 on the FP3 should make thing easier because of its architecture. Updates from Google should come faster and it should not be so hard for Fairphone to integrate them.
Anyhow, I am among those approximated 5% of FP1/2 customers who bought their phone not only because they are fairer than other competing products, but also because the Fairphones used to be fairer from the software point of view as well, i.e. having root access and an open bootloader from the start.
If the FP3 doesn’t allow me to enable root access, I will have to ditch the FP3 and continue to use the FP2…
I would be very sad!
The official statement is: “it’s on the roadmap”.
Thanks. I thought that was informal only.
Yesterday someone on Twitter posted that they were in contact with Fairphone about this question and the response was that root does not void warranty but installing custom ROMs would.
https://twitter.com/MaPFeld/status/1179141027476754436
Just to make sure, when you say “If the FP3 doesn’t allow me to enable root access” do you mean really not giving you any means to do root the phone? Or is it “just” about the warranty which might be voided if you root the phone?
1 Like
Yes, I would have expected Fairphone to allow me – at my own risk, software-wise – to root my phone. I don’t really care whether they make a new OS around this, like Fairphone Open, or if the stock Fairphone OS has an option for this, but it should be the “yours to keep” policy of Fairphone to make this an option. I think this should be preferred to various other means of rooting phones, like external apps from any store.
Concerning warranty, I understand that if I break my phone because of root access that there will not be any support for that. But, like someone else pointed out, if the fault doesn’t relate to having rooted the phone, it should remain in warranty.
[Update] I could live with having Google Apps, although I did always prefer the OpenGApps pico version of it. I sure hope that Fairphone OS comes with a sane minimum of preinstalled stuff anyway.
2 Likes
I’m somewhat confused now 
- The support article says that rooting will void the warranty
- Some random person on Twitter claims they contacted support and they contradicted the article by saying that only installing a Custom ROM will void the warranty, rooting will not
- And I probably misunderstood you, but are you saying Fairphone makes it impossible to root the phone? Or are you missing a simple way of rooting that is officially documented?
If I remember correctly, the bootloader is unlockable, so to me it seems there is no hard reason blocking someone from doing the things they want to do (ignoring the lack of custom ROMs etc. for the moment).
5 Likes
Now I’m confused.
I wanted to know if there is more information available than what’s already provided in the support article you linked.
I am very interested in additional information because I currently use a rooted FP2 (with Fairphone Open as the Android flavor) and I just ordered an FP3, stupidly and blindly thinking that the FP3 will be like the FP2.
I know that I want to have root access on my phone. Maybe I’m wrong, but how else could I use stuff like XPrivacy… But again, if the stock OS will provide such functinality, I’m good without additional root access. I just want to be able to install and use, on my phone, the XPostFramework along with XPrivacy and other apps that require root; FP2 can do that with Fairphone Open, but not with Fairphone OS. BTW, FDroid does require root too to a certain extend, i.e. for automatic app updates.
If what I wrote was misleading, I’m sorry. I don’t know about any details at all, I don’t have my FP3 yet, its status is “prepare shipment” right now. That’s why I ask if there is more information out there than “no; investigating the possibility” for official root access on the FP3. And my personal feeling, and I think I’m not the only one, is that not allowing root from an official Android image would be a mistake on the side of Fairphone. They should develop an official “root” option, either in the official Android version or as a separate OS, like they did with the FP2 (and the FP1).
3 Likes
It is speculation, but maybe they don’t allow root on official ROM for third party reasons ie. Google or Netflix? Widevine L3 is going to look abysmal on the (probably beautiful) 1080p screen. In that case they need to decide if they want an out of the box experience for the masses, or want to please a minority who care about consumer right, privacy right, etc.
1 Like
If I get the support article right, they do “allow” rooting, as they state, that the community might develop Ubuntu or /e/ for the FP3 and that they are looking into bringing back FP Open OS.
They just do not cover any defects that are being caused by rooting.
And that is something, they already had - maybe in a slightly softer version - for the FP2:
To me it seems, they want the experience for the masses, without loosing the minority. It is just, that they right now don’t have the means to address the minority themselves.
2 Likes
It might also be an implementation of CYA. No doubt the product iteration is two steps forward, one step backward. Was everyone happy with FP2 as successor to FP1 back in the days?
1 Like
I certainly was very happy, from the software point of view. The FP2 was a bit, how to put it politely, delicate, because of its modular design, hardware-wise. I think that was the only bad critique I heard about and I can confirm.
2 Likes
After further investigations, I also asked to many other lawyers from different sectors and all of them agree that rooting a device does not void warranty according to the FSFE article.
- The FSFE article refers to the Directive 1999/44/CE that will be superseded by Directive 2019/771/EU which extend the previous one. (UE members need to transpose the 2019/771/EU into their national legislation by 1 July 2021 and 1999/44/CE remains in force until end of 2021).
- In any case the seller is bound by the national consumer protection law (which at the moment implements 1999/44/CE), not the directive directly. Of course, the national consumer protection law cannot contradicts the directive.
- The articles 10,11,13 of the new directive extend the right of the consumer provided by the previous one.
New directive article 10
The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time when the goods were delivered and which becomes apparent within two years of that time.
Old directive article 5
The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods.
New directive article 11
Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within one year of the time when the goods were delivered shall be presumed to have existed at the time when the goods were delivered, unless proved otherwise or unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity
Old directive article 3
The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered.
New directive consideration (45)
For a period of one year, or for a period of two years if Member States choose to apply a two-year period, the consumer should only need to prove that the good is not in conformity, without also needing to prove that the lack of conformity actually existed at the relevant time for establishing conformity.
In order to rebut the consumer’s claim, the seller would need to prove that the lack of conformity did not exist at that time.
New directive consideration (61)
The principle of the seller’s liability for damages is an essential element of sales contracts. Consumers should, therefore, be entitled to claim compensation for any detriment caused by an infringement by the seller of this Directive, including for damage suffered as a consequence of a lack of conformity. Such compensation should put the consumer as much as possible into the position in which the consumer would have been had the goods been in conformity.
In conclusions, the two Directives are in line with the statements made by FSFE: if the defect is factory defect, the seller pays otherwise in case of damage, the customer pays.
The consumer is required to prove only that the lack of conformity exists. He is not required to prove the cause of that lack of conformity or to establish that its origin is attributable to the seller.
P.S.
If you re-read your reference it is in line with the directives. In general, you are covered and, depending on national consumer protection law, you MAY need to prove that the problem existed.
Even in USA, rooting and jailbreaking do not void the warranty according to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The same is confirmed by CPS.
3 Likes
I’m sorry, it did not want to be a personal attack. I was expressing a fact about the quality of comments that are available on famous social network. I was referring to famous Umberto Eco quote:
“Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”
First of all, we were discussing the existing rules and not on the ones that still have to be transfered into national law.
Still, thanx for the citations, that really - sorry to say - prove my point.
- I never said, that rooting the phone voids the warranty in general.
I said, it might, if the rooting is the cause of a defect. And that is exactly, what the FP warranty rules are saying. I would be surprised if any lawyer disagrees on that. - The seller shall be liable does not equal The seller has to prove
And that is the one and only point I made regarding that article.
The new directive is a change to the better for the customer, as the burden of proof lies with the seller for a full year and not just for 6 months.
That is exactly my point (and of course the EU explanation is in line with it’s own directive).
- It is just, that the FSFE article states
But in order to avoid needing to repair or replace your device, the seller has to prove that your action caused the defect.
- And I really hope, that it is obvious, that
“you may need to prove that the problem existed” does not equal
“the seller has to prove that your action caused the defect”
(even if you capitalize the “may”).
Member states might - according to consideration 45 - make it a rule, that the seller will have the burden of proof for the whole 2 years, but I really doubt, that all member states will go this way.
You have concealed this very well 
, especially renewing it by posting the citation by Umberto Ecco in the next paragraph.
You still seem to imply, that the quality of my postings is subpar, while you just cited my statement and my reference to be true and in line with the directive.
Edit:
@mgfp happend to be able to express in one paragraph what I was trying to explain.
Edit2: Just did some spelling correction.
2 Likes
It doesn’t matter what their policy says. if its an factory defect its covered under warranty, even if its rooted or flashed. thats protected under EU law. first 6 months after purchase the seller has to prove it ISN’T an factory defect, after that the user has to prove its an factory defect. if you rooted and they blame it on that you can quite easily counter it, you can’t break certain things with just root, others you can. this is the default protection you have with literally every phone you buy in the EU. if they honour that is up to them, and if you want to go to court over it is up to you. i would go to court over it because i don’t want companies to get away with it. but i would never think fairphone would let it get that far unless its an real grey area.
3 Likes
Hi all, I just quickly wanted to update this thread on the latest developments regarding the use of other OS on Fairphone 3 and how does that work with the warranty. Updates were made today to the warranty document. See here: https://www.fairphone.com/en/legal/fairphone-3-warranty/#6claimingyourwarranty
The key information I want to underline here is in this paragraph:
“If You are running a different operating system on your Product and want your Product to be covered by this Warranty, we will require You to revert back to the software embedded in the Product at purchase. This Warranty covers only the Product as provided by us and, unless the Third Party Operating System is removed, it will not be possible for us to assess whether the defect is caused by the Product hardware or by the Third Party Operating System.”
21 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.