If you want to read an objective test review of the Fairphone 2, read this derstandard.at-article:
Just start improving the wikipedia article if you think the whole free press is so bad 
3 Likes
You must have read a different article than me. It’s not bad press at all, it’s a mixed review. The author clearly likes the idea behind the phone/company and slams the big competitors for neglecting sustainability considerations, he just seems to find the technical specs and the design less convincing compared with other high-end phones. Which is fine, it’s perfectly OK to state opinions in a review. Even ones oneself doesn’t share.
Where do you read that? I don’t see that at all in the article.
This is actually one of my points … FP2 never was intended to be a high end phone … other article compare it rather to OnePlusX for example, a phones you could take as the definition of a upper midrange phone, which makes much more sense.
True, but I was critizising that he does not state his opinions as opinions rather than facts (see for yourself at your “high end phone” remark)
1 Like
Jeder Handyhersteller will, dass seine Kunden mit dem Kauf seiner
Produkte etwas aus ihrer Sicht Gutes bewirken. Meist ist damit eine
Steigerung des eigenen Umsatzes gemeint.
Taking this sarcastic remark together with
Dennoch ist das Fairphone 2 wichtig und richtig und könnte Firmen wie Samsung, Apple und Huawei als Vorbild dienen.
tells you he’d like to have the big guys change their ways.
Das Fairphone 2 ist ein tolles Projekt.
This sentence alone shows you that he likes FP’s mission.
Still the comparisons the author makes are defendable to me. Leaving the sustainability aspect aside and focussing on the relationship between performance and price, you can compare the price with a similarly specified phone or you can compare the specs with a similarly priced phone. And in the latter case that would be rather high-end phones.
Here I’d definitely like to contradict. Unlike a report, other media contributions such as commentary or reviews come with premise that opinions will be stated and newsmakers trust readers that they understand this. It would be unnecessary and really bad writing style to explicitly mark every sentence as an opinion. It’s clear from the outset that a statement such as “this chair does not look elegant” in the context of a review cannot be anything but the author’s opinion and not a fact.
Since this a german only article in a not-german only thread I will not answer in detail (discussion has been very long a this point already).
You see the article that way, I see it differently.
Just in general I become more and more sensitive to press (of whatever kind) being manipulative. Many articles - and this one I think is one of them - are not merely informative (what might be difficult) but written in a way that at the end of the article a certain feeling sticks or only one conclusion can be made. Meaning that if you don’t take good care you are manipulated into a certain opinion that might not be your own had you read a more differentiated article.
Of course everyone is responsible for his way of getting informed, meaning that reading only from one source is never a good idea. Nevertheless this manipulating conduct is something I despise.
1 Like
I actually started to improve the wikipedia page 
, i added the “hardware choice” category and improved the “price” category, but, as english is not my native language, it would be nice if someone could check it (and improve it of course ! )
2 Likes
The worst review of the Fairphone 2 I have read so far:
Zu teuer, zu hässlich, zu schwach on chip.de
“Too expensive, too ugly, too weak”
I’m beautiful myself and don’t need the phone to improve my looks. 
So the Fairphone is good enough for me.
4 Likes
Nice! In Wikipedia it’s always useful use sources. Maybe you can add some references?
Oh dear, that’s some absolute rubbish article. To sum it up: It’s too ugly and too expensive. Plus for that kind of money one can also buy a super stylish Galaxy S6 Edge, which has better technology and looks a lot better! Great journalism… -_-
1 Like
What makes me wonder is that not one review makes a background check regarding production/suppliers/CSR. There is some info out there, but it looks like most journalists only try to compare the specs they get shown, nothing else. Apple, Samsung they all have some info out there, but it looks like they don’t include and double check that in the reviews.
3 Likes
I noticed that the Fairphone 2 hasn’t been tested by the major German IT website computerbase.de. I’d suggest to the marketing team to send a device to every major European IT website (maybe after pre-orders are filled). Or does the budget not allow this? I’m curious about the policy on this. I’m sure the project would get a big boost in visibility if the FP2 popped up not just on these websites.
The Fairphone team already did this. Because many reviews already appeared before the first FP2 was shipped.
The review made me laugh. They say repeatedly that the FP2 is very extreme ugly. They think that the FP2 is the Fiat Multipla of the smartphones. But I don’t find the FP2 is ugly. Otherwise, I had sent back the device. The FP2 looks at least better than the Samsung Galaxy S6 edge (which they recommend), the HTCs or the Lumias.
I also ask myself what they did with the FP2 to get it so slow and stuttering. My FP2 runs smoothly without hanging or slowing down.
2 Likes
My guess: They failed to work around some known bugs because they didn’t check for help on our forum. Maybe their FP2 also had some real problems, but they just assumed that all Fairphones have them.
1 Like
Chip is no good resource. They also started bundling stupid adware with software downloaded from their site. They hide downloads behind three pages to get more page impressions and ad space. They have almost no articles, but instead all of the content that is left is packed in “galleries” – again a cheap trick to display more ads. Chip as an information resource has long ago died, now they squezze the rest out of it. I doubt they have any resources for a thorougly review.
To be fair, if i was Fairphone, i would make sure my review models are not faulty and in good condition.
4 Likes
[quote=“Zebrafax, post:69, topic:10157”]
Too expensive, too ugly, too weak
[/quote]I don’t understand why they don’t get the idea:
price-performance: 45% (do they actually know what the main “performance” of the fairphone is??)
akku: 68.5% (only a little worse than comparable phones, so why such a bad grading?)
specs: 70% (well, they are saying the Qualcomm has very good performance, 3GB RAM is plenty an 32GB internal as well. what do you want?)
display: 85% (did they regard it’s easily repairable? they didn’t state why the display is bad)
cam: 67.2% (probably true but it’s not a fair picture they tested it with)
performance & user friendliness: 76.9% (no explanation provided)
Telefon & Sound: 82.4% (they said it’s very good. Why the grading?)
I’m disappointed by chip 
I wrote the specs to the German wiki site a month ago or so… Maybe someone else with more wiki knowledge can improve that…?
The Fairphone 2 has only 2 GB RAM.
You’re right. I didn’t even think about what they wrote on the page. It’s obviously wrong information
Sent from my phone - please excuse my brevity.