Same for iOS (not strictly monthly, but “as required”).
Non-warranty repairs are not completely covered (“a certain level of repairs (for example first display repair)”. Also, similar offers have been available from phone manufacturers, insurance companies and even network operators for years and for a lower price.
That would indeed be unique since it would allow replacement of defective phones with minimal downtime. (Similar offers typically include replacement within 24 hours.) I just don’t think this single USP could convince businesses to switch brands.
Don’t get me wrong, I really want Fairphone to succeed. I just don’t think this is the way to success. I hope they will prove me wrong.
Thank you for adding to the discussion. One more thing: surprisingly to some, businesses are, just as individuals, also capable of balancing different values in their purchases.
So, although hard facts are important, more and more businesses are realizing that their purchases and actions should promote long term global stability and not only short term monetary gains. There is even a whole new branch of companies emerging from this idea; the BCorps are growing every day and often performing better in many ways then ‘old world’ competitors.
My company mobile got exactly one (1) update since I’ve got it. (Got it before I bought my FP2)
E.g. “Stagefright” not fixed, let alone “Krack”.
To me, a good part of the attraction of open hardware (and software) is the notion of ownership. A leased phone would be the opposite .…
OK - my iPhone 4s has finally quit, so I need a new phone. Sustainability is a top requirement, so I’m attracted to Fairphone.
I’m not a demanding user, but my instinct is to want up-to-date hardware so that my purchase will stay relevant for longer. That the FP2 hardware is 2.5 years old does niggle at me. Should I wait for FP3 etc.
So, I see that I am now applying a market force on the Supplier to make regular hardware updates, and so perpetuate the non-sustainable cycle of producing new products.
I notice in the current Fairphone fund raising, that the 2.5 million target is to move towards developing Fairphone as a service rather than a device we own.
There is a game changing idea!
If I was buying a phone service, I would not care about the model. The only thing that would be important is that it has a shiny cover and it delivers the service I need today.
- If the service fails, the Supplier fixes it
- If I need a more advanced service, I upgrade the service.
Since I don’t own the product, I do not have to build margin into my purchase for possible future services that I may or may not ever need.
Also, if a company is selling a service, they are motivated to extract the maximum value out of their product. So they would try to achieve high reliability and good maintainability out of the products that they own.
But, wait a minute. Is this not the approach we have when we get a phone as part of our monthly subscription to a telecommunications provider? And that generally sucks.
I moved your post here. Above you’ll be able to read a lot about Fairphone as a service. Amongst others: It’s not available for private customers (yet).
OK - sorry, I had not seen this topic existed.
I read back many of the posts - not easy to judge the merits of the idea.
One of the points made is that with the service based model the customer might push to change his phone every year. I think this misses some of the point. The customer would not have a concept of different models. There would be no big FP2 or FP3 label on the device. They would specify a service, not a model. This might be provided by the same hardware with an updated OS. However, my reference to a shiny cover was not completely flippant. The customer would still like his phone to look good, whatever is under the bonnet.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.