Honestly, there are only 2 ways Fairphone can become more competitive pricing-wise:
So yeah, I’m voting for #2 
Luckily @BertG already posted the cost breakdown, explaining it very well!
I would love for that to happen but it will not happen, history shows that exploitation is an invaluable resource. Our society was built on the backs and bones of slaves and slaves with privileges. A radical paradigm will make all that we hold for granted to implode. So I will vote for:
3. Aggressive ingenuity
One thing that you may underestimate here is the lower cost-per-year of a Fairphone versus its competitors making it a more compelling choice than it seems at first glance. I can’t talk about the RedMi example given, because I haven’t owned it. I still own a Fairphone 2, new bought for ~£525 (I think), plus a handful of batteries and a bottom module. This means I had ~5 years of phone already for (rough estimate) £650, or £130 per year. The FP3 has a bigger battery, meaning it’ll last longer, and is cheaper to begin with. With the same amount of perseverance (replacing worn parts), there’s a good chance you can get 5 years of life out of it for £500-550, or £100-110/year.
When you make this comparison, try and ask yourself how long both phones will last (you). Fairphone is easily repairable, and gives software updates for longer, making it a phone that can last you a whole lot longer. Factoring that in, the FP can suddenly be “only” twice as expensive rather than 4x (… as long as it doesn’t accidentally take a dive in the Oude Gracht or goes skydiving without a parachute of course :-D)
This is mainly about economies of scale. Fairphone would have to sell way more phones to become more price-competitive. Is this ever going to happen? I doubt it.
Best wishes,
Thomas
The good thing is that the number of FP3 sold until autumn 2020 was equal or even higher than the number of FP2 sold in 5 years.
I guess they still have to be recognized in the market by the average user.
Though this is no easy task, they seem to be on a good way already.
Things like the video on youtube doing the durability test (see this thread) on a channel with more than 6.6 million subscribers are a big step in the right direction.
And such things are paving the path to the American market as well. I guess for the break-through they have to get recognized there. And they really should cross the Atlantic Ocean with a troublefree phone-model and a refined support infrastructure only. Therefore it’s a good thing in my opinion, they are focussion on Europe right now and gain visibility.
I see your point @techuser3000 and it is hard to explain to many people why you pay four times the price for the hardware.
Let´s use another example for an explain:
It started in the mid 2000s when very small car manufacturer joining the marked with a very uncompetitive car which has limited range, space, comfort and reliability compared to all others. Only very enthusiastic people considered buying such a car.
Only one thing makes it unique, it is powered by electricity.
Now we have 2021 and this company claimed to be the moste valuable car company in the world.
What happened? The company at that time was confident that electic cars will be more desired in the future then petrol cars. This is what pays out for the company now.
To transform that to the cell phone market: Will there be a larger amount of customers now and later on who consider to buy a product with a unique (social) feature?
What do you think what will be the future?
There is hope. And as Fairphone streamlines its own production, it will definitely gets more and more competitive, even if slowly, and it is way ahead compared to others in terms of fairness. I do not know what is the plan with the FP3 or FP4, but I feel like it can only get fairer, better and cheaper. And therefore convince more and more people. People also gets more and more aware of the downsides of this industry.
Fairphone does not have direct competitors so it cannot lose to anyone, like for example Nokia did, or Siemens. But its market share is also nonexistent, but is slowly growing, not that it will grow into a tech giant like samsung, but like I said before, the company exists as a practice template for the near future companies. Question is, is ethical industry a reality or a utopia, time will tell…
The issue on ethics could have its own topic but that would go to thousands of post, so I’m OK with the issue being, so called ‘off topic’ a bit as it’s a never ending discussion that underpins everything we do in our world of exploration which is inevitably exploitation.
The question is the term ethics. Ethics are numerous and tend to encompass certain groups of individuals that predominantly focus on their continued existence within a larger group, like the human species in this biosphere, or the creation of another on Mars.
So an ethical industry can grow in reality but not be all encompassing as it will forever compete over resources.
Given that no one has control over their own consumption and that most try to control others through physical force or ethical arguments ~ and that cows and trees have just about zero say ~ then yes utopia.
And given the distance form here to utopia is often seen as a time differential then that equates to never.
However the basis of ethics is not just the need to survive with some concern for the future consequences but that as an individual I want to remind myself that I actually want to care as a developing consciousness.
Here personal ethics is an acknowledgment of morality, and my ethics are just arguments to help me wean myself from consumption, as one day it will all just drop away.
So whilst we play together why not play the game of ethics.
I agree with most of your thinks here.
The thing here, in my opinion, is: do we, “common” people, really know what is cheap and what is expensive? Most people just know the final price of the products, so they base their thoughts about what is cheap or expensive in the comparison of the mass market final price of the products. I think we have to see further and realize what is behind our “level of live” (I’m speaking, specially, about the more economical developed countries). The thing is that we can not know much things with exactitude, so it’s really interesting when, for example, Fairphone makes their cost breakdowns public.
It’s important to talk about these things and to think about it deeper than the economical system wants to. It is important to raise awareness, and I think Fairphone (and many other initiatives) are helping to do that. Obviously, governments should also legislate in that sense, and citizens should lobby and demand it.
I hope for a better future for the planet, and, by extension, to every in it 
Whereas I like your post, but didn’t love it 
are the issues I have that differ
a) I don’t want any government to legislate what I should or should not do and by ethical extension that applies to anyone but not everyone.
b) Given a) I clearly do not support the notion that people should lobby the government to do anything as by transference that impacts my freedoms.
And whereas I recognise the dependence upon social structures I want those structures to be designed by the people who use them not dictated to by the government who’s role is to force a common option to become the required norm and enforceable.
Well, first of all, this is a complex topic, and English is not my first language, so it’s hard for me to qualify my words, and can be little misunderstandings. Sorry if I don’t express myself really clearly. In any case, I think I understand your point, but maybe it’s far from what I consider, at this moment, practical and (closely) possible.
What I mean is that we (the citizens) should demand to our governments is laws protecting everyone’s privacy and security, environment and consumer rights; they should promote trying extend products life and promoting reusing objects instead buy new ones, and “forcing” companies (or, at least, pressing them) to pay what is fair, and not letting them explode their workers (in their own country, or abusing other countries weak labor legislation). I think that most companies try to get just their own benefit, not worrying at all about the impact their actions have in the world (their impact is suffered by everyone, but their benefits are just for them).
Of course, this is just my opinion, and maybe I’m not right, but, as I said, I think it’s good to share these thoughts and to read other people’s ones, because that will make us more conscious about the problem, and be closer to “solve” it.
Regards
I do agree with you.
And in my opinion right now in the case between Australia and Facebook the imponrtance of governmental regulations is very visible.
Leaving it to the market and “customer decisions” we end up with companies, that act kind of in their own universe. And they do decide what the consumer wants and what freedoms and choices we have. Just take the two Schrems decisions of the EuGH.
Companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, Samsung etc. are soo big, their annual budget is bigger than that of most countries. In my opinion, the times when the market could influence those kind of companies is long gone.
And while e.g. Tesla might be driven by the personality of Elon Musk, the fact, that this company’s value is higher than VW and Toyota surely has got to do with lots of regulations and restrictions worldwide regarding cars with combustion engines, while at the same time advancing e-mobility.
Customer demand alone never would have achieved that (at least not that fast.)
(I know of the role Murdoch is playing in this game. But I guess, that doesn’t change the basic problems. Industry sellf-commitment hardly ever achieved what it was meant to do.)
Ok I love all this, so sorry to exploit you all
The problem of having someone oversee privacy is that a person’s privacy cannot be assessed without looking in to their private lives.
Only an individual can decide what to keep private and once a person requires a social structure is starts to fall. A social structure requires that their is a record of individuals designs, preferences, location and identity so that their individual and private designs can be met via the social structure of business.
That we now have this vast social intercourse, for example WhatsApp, an individuals preferences, location and identity are now recorded and stored in multiple places repeatedly. In doesn’t take much for a calculating business person to assess the use of this info to further the so called individual desires when they see many have a common interest and the busines becomes a network.
Many years ago the only common external record were banks and of course Birth records. All held on paper in a single location. Now the population is 4 times bigger, the economy 4000 times bigger and the info is in the wind.
Stopping the leaves from blowing around is fun for children and social/ethic business for supposedly green souls who gather the autumn debris for compost.
Dead leaves and history are that. My fear of privacy is only born of my fear of the future where someone may find out where I get my compost, magic mushrooms and where I stashed my gold for a rainy day, OH! I forgot to say I have chosen to reside in the woods where is always rains and I am rapidly becoming the debris of society ~ no I was always an outcast
Hi In all of your outpourings on this forum I’ve never had an issue with your heartfelt views, in fact I have been singularly impressed with you and a few others.
So Hmm! Governments ~ only have power through physical force to sanction others and can only do this with lots of money, hence Tesla and other actors more powerful than many governments.
However governments and Tesl only get support/credit via money they earn in providing consumers with what they want. Governments or Tes ~ I avoid them where I can but am dependent upon social structures like consumables and transport.
So back to Fairphone. It’s heartening to see a few people take on the views of the mob culture but they will be eaten, alive hopefully, and spawn a whole generation of ‘ethical’ electronics.
The animal biomass on this planet used to be 100% wild, then we bred animals and now we are 50% of the mass and our cats, dogs, cows and lamb etc are 45% of the biomass.
And none of the remaining 5%, nor the tress really care how the government or TEs exploit them, they would no doubt like to be left to their own devices to exploit at their will.
So finding the will I would love to free myself from GOV and TES and allow the 5% to do as they wish and initially contain colonisation. To ask for another’s help is what gave me the power to overcome the wild in the first place ~ communicating my earthy/body/mental/emotional desires and vulnerabilities increases exploitation.
Oh! did I mention Fairphone, ~ yes I’m sure I did
Oh we’re so very far from a society where an individual is its indispensable representative and not a captive born into its bondage.
Think about the best thing: A Fairphone had 5 years software support and switchable Parts. So it Will work 5 years and the Xiaomi 2 years. The best thing is de productionprice.for now its huge, but when Fairphone grow with selling more phones the Price for each part will fall to a better price so we would get lower phone prices. I think the Price Will ever be nearly the same as the Xiaomi with as only difference the Price for the workers
All this talk of longevity ?? I have phones over ten years old that still work, sure with outdated software, but they work. The issue is the consumer wanting the latest app which requires high quality video etc. No 5 year old phone with FP3+ specs will suffice…
FP phone users have lower wants from their phone which could be done with many old and cheaper phones, so it’s not about price but clarifying intentions.
As I don’t consider that power is based on an increasing income the more I pay the less I consume.
All this talk of longevity : again