Yes, I’m positive they’ve learned from past mistakes. This already shows in actions taken (and described above). However I give you that there might be new traps to fall in. It’s the future we are talking about after all
IMHO these are two different issues and not to be confused. Let me explain by first going into details why including GApps out of the box is important and then elaborate why Fairphone still doesn’t restrict our freedom any more by doing so.
Fairphone is trying to sell 100k+ phones a year (which I think is a good thing). Regular customers expect certain features of phones. Having access to the Play Store and other Google Services are among these features. And, frankly, although we really love free and open software, we all know that there are no equal open alternatives with the same level of quality, security, etc (I’m talking mostly about the Play Store here).
This means that if Fairphone wants to appeal to a larger market and promote their ideals (that you probably share as I do) to a large audience, they need to offer a great out of the box experience. Including Google Services without any shady workarounds is a step in that direction. Hence there are plenty of reasons to include GApps when shipping Fairphone 2.
Its all down to whether FP wants to build a regular phone or make a difference or whether more fair resources are enough for the majority to claim this difference.
True. And just as they are not able to use only fair resources, they have a hard time making the phone completely free. But in both categories they are taking steps in the right direction.
It’s up to each of us to decide if these steps are large enough for our personal taste. Personally, I’ve been disappointed in the past but I recognize their honest efforts. Therefore I’ve decided for myself that given their small size and little influence, they are doing a great job.
The question might be whether you look at the sum of the parts.
Is it enough to build a phone that is only partially free? You don’t seem to think so.
On the other hand it might also not be optimal to create a 100% free phone that is hardly usable or is only bought by 1000 people (look how many people complain about the price already).
I think the process of making a phone a little fairer and freer and learning what has to change for more progress while still having a sustainable business model to apply what one has learned is a good compromise.
[quote=“jftr, post:25, topic:6558”]
Is it enough to build a phone that is only partially free? You don’t seem to think so.
[/quote]Enough for what?
For the final goal? Certainly not.
For a step towards an open phone? Sure.
But I see the installed Google Apps Store as a step backwards regarding the goal of an open phone. So I have to assume that an open phone is not what FP wants.
Also the price of the FP2 is not really connected with openness of the phone. I think FP team want to make a high-end device. I didn’t see a poll about the tech specs. Did I miss it? Does the majority ask for the bigger screen? It’s still “FP decides. Eat it or leave it.”. So please don’t connect the price of the phone with “what people want”, also.
I’d really like to know where you seen this.
All I read was:
And I thought and hope that meant that you can buy the phone without Gapps if you wish to do so. Because I fear you can’t ever truly call your phone google-free if you had gapps installed on it, because they dig so deep into the system and make irreversible changes.
According to CTO Olivier Hebert, talks with potential partners have started, but he didn’t give any details. The phone will come with Google’s apps (e.g. Play Store) installed, but Fairphone also wants to provide a naked version of Android without these apps.
My guess is they have more information from a press event or a press kit. Could still be bogus though.
Edit: Found an English translation of the linked article. It sounds like Fairphone CTO Olivier Hebert said that Play Store will be installed.
As you can imagine, i disagree. I think this should not be assessed on one aspect, but the full package. If Fairphone delivers on the promises made towards open source Fairphone | The phone that cares for people and planet, then the FP2 will can be seen as more free than the current model.
I think you mix “Google Apps” and “non-free software” in general: The FP1 is full of non free software: Binary blobs for drivers, several apps added or modified by MediaTek… driver support is also not very good.
If these areas can be improved, and supposedly there will be alternative distributions (Firefox, Ubuntu, Cyanogen), would you still say the FP2 is a step back just because it defaults to deliver Google Apps?
I would have liked this as well. But we are not the only potential customers and there may be other reasons for them deciding to use a 5inch display. Maybe we should simply ask for the reasons.
@paulakreuzer Why? If Fairphone delivers an alternative, it would probably similar to the “Vanilla Android” today. An installation would replace the full operating system. No need to fear Google Apps zombies.
And still here i am dragging myself into the same discussions again
[quote=“ben, post:31, topic:6558”]
If Fairphone delivers on the promises made towards open source
[/quote]FP failed on its promises in past. There is no reason I should assume it’ll be the opposite in the future. So, for now, I base my opinions on facts and not on promises.
[quote=“ben, post:31, topic:6558”]
I think you mix “Google Apps” and “non-free software” in general: The FP1 is full of non free software: Binary blobs for drivers, several apps added or modified by MediaTek… driver support is also not very good.
If these areas can be improved, and supposedly there will be alternative distributions (Firefox, Ubuntu, Cyanogen), would you still say the FP2 is a step back just because it defaults to deliver Google Apps?
[/quote]And I say it’s you who are mixing it. I never said the FP2 in whole is a step backwards. The sack of MTK is certainly a good thing. But my post says:
[quote=“HackAR, post:26, topic:6558”]I see the installed Google Apps Store as a step backwards regarding the goal of an open phone.
[/quote]If you read it carefully, you’ll see it’s about Google Apps Store only.
[quote=“ben, post:31, topic:6558”]
Maybe we should simply ask for the reasons.
[/quote]Maybe it’s they who should tell us, why they’ve made a poll and decided against the outcome?
If you refer to the poll on the forum: this forum is a community forum, not a means of communication between FP and its clients.
Besides, the people on this forum are not the (only) people who would maybe buy a FP2. So maybe there is better information to base such decisions upon, than a poll on a forum…
The poll was initiated by community members (if it is this one you are talking about) and 75 community members participated. Hardly representative of anything.
And, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, there are probably a dozen reasons for how they designed Fairphone 2. As you say, it would be very interesting indeed to learn their motivation and reasons.
[quote=“danielsjohan, post:33, topic:6558”]
So maybe there is better information to base such decisions upon
[/quote]Maybe. We might never know. Maybe 50000 people mailed FP and told they would by a 550 EUR device. Who knows.
[quote=“jftr, post:34, topic:6558”]
The poll was initiated by community members
[/quote]A moderator to be exact. I’m ok with that, if you argue he’s not a representative of FP and should be seen as a private member only. This would come down to:
Anyway, the discussion about the tech decision on FP2 is not really related to the topic of this thread “New Fairphone will run Android”. It was only a secondary argument, that FP is not as open and transparent as they claim.
@HackAR Fairphone is not a democracy and user/moderator-created polls on the forum are no binding referendums.
Also there might even be a reason why they didn’t make the FP2 just the way that FP1 users would want it! Fairphone is hoping to sell the FP2 not to people who already have a FP1 (or any working smartphone) but to acquire new customers.
I admit with the flaws that FP1 has they can’t expect that no FP1 user will sit out the FP2 but I’m sure that many people will stick with the FP1 for years to come.
[quote=“paulakreuzer, post:37, topic:6558”]
Fairphone is not a democracy
[/quote]Never was. But some people think FP does what people want. And my point (one of many) was to tell them, that’s not what happens here.
