Personally I don’t think the FP4 price is super relevant. Some of the bugs are frankly unacceptable at ANY price class and I’m surprised that they keep raising and decreasing the minimum brightness in every other patch.
Don’t they have any form of testing for this? I don’t get it.
How are you gonna test anything if the same absolute level of brightness is “wayyyyyyy to much” for some while at the same time it’s “unreadable” for others? It’s a fight nobody can win.
The obvious solution (obvious to me at least) is to have a simple setting allowing to set the minimum and maximum brightness the automatic feature can use, from “backlight off” to “backlight full power”.
That would cover all use case, those who want it dark, those who want it bright, and those who want it “very dark and very bright”, or “not too dark and not too bright”…
Tomorrow we’ll be 2 months behind on updates again. Has anyone heard anything about the next patch?
No nothing is known and in general in my eyes so far nothing special, because in my view updates were never monthly for none of the devices.
android security update, april 2023 have been released.
fairphone: these are not the sustainable and long lasting phones you were loooking for
fp4? flagship product? two months old security level?
nah… you dont need to see his security updates… wavehand…
A slower than wanted security update doesn’t effect the sustainability etc. The phone won’t stop working sooner, the eco system won’t fail earlier and the miners and factory workers are still getting the ‘fairer’ deal. 
You’ll probably get A13 before you know it and all your problems will be transformed. 
I have so much hope for the upcoming update!!!
Manage your expectations, otherwise you might be disappointed 
I’ve been waiting for 1,5 years for the update that solves the list of issues. Not just what has been discovered since Android 12.
WoW, that sounds like I could completely forget that something is improving. I actually found the FP4 running Android 11 to be very solid. But with Android 12 is so buggy. I really don’t find that funny anymore.
That’s a question of the conditions under which you would like to use the FP4 for a longer time. And there might be the frequence of updates as well be a point, together with an impressingly bad camera software, the photo gallery bug, the low / constantly shifting brightness without remembering own adjustements and the impression of aconstantly deteriorating, uninterested firmware maintenance quality.
If this makes you ordering another phone already after 3 months since you don’t want this ‘experience’ for the next 4+ years, then this truly effects the FP4s sustainability.
Only looking at the production process when defining a product as ‘sustainable’, leaving out software / firmware quality (including update frequency) is drawing an arbitrary line. You can’t define ‘sustainability’ without usability- and that’ll include at least a defined schedule for the security updates!
The FP 4 really is a statement regarding the production process, but not an example of a sustainable mass product which could reach a larger amount of people.
You are correct in the issue that sustainability is a user interface. What is it more important to sustain, your use of the phone or your use of the miners and factory workers.
Ecologically I don’t see an issue, consumerism will trash the environment no matter how long a phone lasts, so it’s down to a) are you as an individual prepared to pay for fairtrade, which may mean your phone rots like a banana or b) do you want a phone that lasts forever.
The choice on what you want to sustain is yours.
The phone is fine, the use and the user may have more obvious problems with a modular phone but in some, and hopefully most, cases will see that supporting and sustaining fairtrade outweighs the sustainability of the phone.
Sadly as business is business, and fair trade is a business, more phones means more business. So those short of finances may want to steer clear of Fairphones
This is a false dichotomy, since “your use of the phone” determines its desirability, without which there are no sales, and with no sales there is no money to pay workers fairly (or otherwise)…
You can’t isolate parts and declare some more important than others, because it’s a whole: Fairphone is a commercial company selling phones built a certain way. Not a registered charity…
Nobody will buy an useless piece of junk just because those who built it were paid a little more than others. So Fairphone need to make sure their phones stay above the pain limit where people who might buy one decide it isn’t worth their money.
You see, before I decided to buy one, I read a lot of online stuff about it, I liked the general idea, but also heard it was, well, let’s say “unpolished”… I assumed that all those problems were about to be fixed (repairability and all), and so I bought me one.
Now, half a year later the “teething problems” excuse doesn’t stand anymore, and if I was looking for a phone today (April 6th 2023), I’m not sure I would still go for the FP4. I’m all for sustainability and stuff, but I do need a working phone. 
I agree with the sentiment, but it’s your definition of ’ a useless piece of junk’ that is the topic and the individual’s choice.
And note this topic is about the ‘latest update’
The issue is the Fairphone may not be providing flawless updates, quality photos and other delights, it is not waterproof or maybe ‘future’ proof, but generally it seems to be fine for most buyers, given the increase in sales…
The junk side, after all, it’s only a little junky, is well worth the investment in fair trade.
Still to repeat what I have said a number of times
a) I doubt I’ll buy from another company as there is no fair trade aspect, (Shift Phones are getting there)
b) My 2 FP3s over two years old have no problems
c) I wouldn’t advise anyone to buy a Fairphone, it fact I have a policy of not advising anyone to do anything But if someone truly treasures the idea of Fair Trade I will point out the Fairphone, with caveats
Unpolished Hmm! I’d definitely say a bit rough, but apparently some people like it a bit rough, though I didn’t want it I can’t say it was unexpected. A daughter pushed me down this fair road. Now ‘we’ have three FPs
So let’s see what happens when A13 comes along with it’s new Android looks and demands on the FP4. Big clock on home screen more manageable ~ fingerprint sensor fussy with banks. Adaptive light sort of sorted, better image capture.
There will no doubt be a lot to talk about, but the fair trade aspect will be at the core.
Okay, I admit “junk” was too hard. My point is, it’s a phone: One is bound to expect some things of a phone, like being able to make phone calls. I spend daily a good hour making/receiving calls on that thing…
Well, I explained that above for one buyer, myself:
I liked the concept, I hoped it wasn’t just hype, and that the problems I was hearing about were temporary and about to be fixed (See my early posts here).
I’m still (mostly) optimistic, but it’s getting harder by the day, seeing there is no visible proof any effort is made to remediate the known bugs. You know, making the difference between “they don’t care” and “they are actively working on it, but it’s not done yet”.
Well, YMMV as they say, but as for me, I first and foremost needed a phone, the “fair” and “sustainable” parts were just bonuses. They were the reason I didn’t go with another Samsung, not the reason I bought a phone in the first place.
For me, FP4 is perfect with 2 exceptions:
It has a great camera, the update frequency is not great, but sufficient, especially with Lineage OS, which I have on it. The speaker is very good.
What’s not good: Ghosttouches and the missing pressure sensor
Same same, except I used Pixels in the past rather than Samsungs. The 5-year warranty of FP played a huge part as well as it pretty much guarantees that I will have a phone for 5 years.
Hopefully Fairphone will have figured out how to make a banger by the time it’s time to buy a new phone, or I’m frankly going back to Pixel.
Reminder that the Fairphone 3 is currently still “supported” but shipping the insecure and end of life Linux 4.9 kernel.
The fact that Linux 4.9 is EOL does not mean Fairphone does not backport patches to it to keep it as secure as possible. It is a common thing in long-living software products. But I can’t guarantee FP actually does that.
The problems we’re talking here aren’t a result of a ‘modular phone’ design, they’re result of careless software maintenance. For example:
Hardcoding Google photos app instead og linking to the system gallery app seems to be a unnecessary deliberate action
The bluetooth problems aren’t related to a modular design
The brightness isn’t related to a modular design
I suppose the camera app with a 4 to 5 second shutter delay in the dark and bad macro focus isn’t related to ‘modular design’ either…
.
As written above: The careless software maintenance destroys the trust that these tasks might get properly addressed (at least until documented clearly). But that’s again a point for the ‘Communicating with the users’ discussion.
.
Carelessness is not compatible with sustainability. Negligence in one area can’t be compensated with higher effort in another area and the impression of sloppiness / neglect in maintaining especially the most visible part of the phone- the OS with its user interface- will reduce the trust in the other parts of the production process and maintenance.