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.
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.
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.
At this stage there’s no competition, so … they just keep trying to improve?
As you say, the choice is smartphones with better technical specs that range from unethical to terribly, horribly, grossly unethical. Even if you just look for upgradeable phones there’s not really any competition. So your question really comes down to “how come tax-evading slavers and planet-rapists can sell things cheaper” … and to me that looks like its own answer.
(also, with clothing/shoes AllBirds seem to be trying to help. But again, they don’t have any sub-$10 running shoes)
In Australia we’re required to use a covid-tracing app that does not run on my old phone. Our electronic driver license also no longer runs on that phone. I want to have those things. They’re both just conveniences, but they’re part of a whole system of things that only work if you have the relevant app.
It’s annoying that my five year old phone doesn’t run the app, and even more annoying that a big part of the problem is Samsung working to stop people side-loading newer versions of Android onto it. But that’s something I can only affect by “voting with my feet”… buying a Fairphone, in this case, and getting someone in Europe to re-ship it to me in Australia.
And a good chance they have a severely diminished battery life. I’m aware that other phones can do longevity too. If you treat an iPhone well it can last, and for £100 you can get its battery replaced (or more if you do it through Apple?) after 2-3 years. But I’d argue that phones that you can stretch >2 years of normal use are more expensive to begin with.
So let’s take a step back from “Fairphone is obviously the best choice for everyone!”, that’s not what I necessarily want to imply. Do you think we can agree that we should judge the price of a phone not as lump sums against each other, but rather compare them, as we really should be doing with all consumer goods if we care about sustainability, on a basis of cost per (expected) year of life?
Which, perhaps slightly but not completely off-topic, does raise the interesting problem of “working class economics”, excellently phrased by T. Pratchett as frequently circulated on the internet. A snippet:
I see this as too simplistic as cost per year is relative to what the cost is and I’d hate to return to the notion that the cost is measured in monetary terms.
Whereas I note money is an indication of cost, it is only such for the individual. £1 to a starving person is wealth, whereas £10,000 for a billion air is a penny.
So what I am saying is that cost is not related to longevity or planetary resources, but to how you feel about your actions now, not how they play out in five years or a hundred years. A phone that lasts 100 years costing £10,000 or £1000 for 10 years is cheap for some but still costs the same in resources if it was bought for £1
It’s not the price that is of concern, and competition is not something I use as a method for measuring cost or concern.
That’s why I say we should judge the price of a phone on a basis of cost per (expected) year of life, not judge the whole phone based on it. A purchasing decision is never made on price alone, and different people will make different trade-offs based on their wealth, desires and emotions. Although… perhaps there is a truth in saying we probably take both “price” and “price per year” in account for this trade-off. As illustrated by Pratchett .
People want to be practical first and environmental last, and I cannot disagree. Realistically the phone has to be competitive to make a change, or the whole idea will become unsustainable very fast. So far I think, fairphone 3 is somewhat competitive, it meets the needs of most people, ethically minded people that is. In my experience when I advertise my phone to others (which begins with ‘what the hell is fairphone?’) the first thing I mention is the replaceable battery and replaceable screen (as well as fair wages and no child labour), with that said the price to replace the screen on the fairphone is much cheaper since you do the repair yourself, it is not faster since you have to order it, whereas any other phone you can expect to change it in a day or less from the numerous phone—repair shops, you will be surprised but with right tools and skill almost any phone can be fixed, probably any phone except rare breeds like fairphone, but in case of fairphone one does not need skill to replace parts, only money and some patience. So where do I stand? I think fairphone has the potential to be competitive and ethical at the same time, for the average consumer, as the time goes and as the ethical practices are becoming more widespread.
One of the features of fairphone is the hope for better future, which essentially is fair future, maybe tomorrow, maybe in a year, or ten years, we just need to know we are making progress, that is enough. I guess we have decided by now what kind of society we are, human or inhuman, and by that I don’t mean ideologies but human qualities, which is self—reflection and thus empathy and humility.
Though I’ve just given a ‘like’ to @existentionaut post above as it does cover the issues well I don’t think Fairphone can be competitive i.e. like for like in the product.
The cost of self reflection is that those who can afford to pay more for the labour endured by the workers could pay more if they have the heart. In the material world of exploitation, whether of people or other aspects of the environment, something or someone losses out.
If a person is not prepared to pay more to be fair then then can carry on being competetive.
Fairphone can be competitive, but they have to improve quality assurance and support. Extended longevity does not help the average user, it is rather a prolonged pain to live with a product that has so many software flaws. It comes even worse when support does not reply for weeks, and when they do, they have no other idea than to advise a reset to factory settings, to gain time…
Similar to my last post I ‘liked’ the post above but can’t see how it can be competitive on pricing ~ as the topic queries.
Who even wants to compete with Samsung and Apple etc. on pricing and specs given the poor labour and environmental costs it requires.
The real competition is for the hearts of those who say they care. Anyone can sway the mind with all sorts of promises but those with a heart are not really looking for competitive prices and eco arguments but a fair deal and fair is not cheap.
Sure as @DeepSea indicates there are glaring downsides to having a Fairphone and I’d rather pay even more if support was adept as solving the issue promptly. I’d go from 400 Euros to 600 Euros, so I just can’t see it as a pricing competition.
If only Fairphone could be competitive in support then I’d recommend the FP3+ to others, but as it is now I wouldn’t encourage anyone to buy a Faiphone
I’m not concerned about saving the planet via electronic fairtrade etc. as fairtrade is about the people who do the work today.
If and when the Fairphone 4 comes out I hope support is excellent even if the phone is a bit archaic and costly, so 600 Euros would be fine. And by the way I am not rich by western standards as 600 is a months income. I would just love to have a phone where the manufactures had enough resources to care about the owners of the phone promptly and efficiently but I doubt even 600 will do that
are the issues I have that differ
.