Unfortunately, this is not the average support but the maximum in the Android world except for Fairphone.
Yes, the FP3 is expensive but I see at least 3 reasons for this:
- small quantities so more expensive components,
- better paid workers,
- a longer update and upgrade support (you need to pay programmers).
The last point on your list is relative: There are issues (especially regarding audio and Bluetooth) that are not solved, although they have been existing since the phone hit the market. Fairphone confirmed that these issues shall be resolved with firm-/software updates. Does the money paid for a FP3 go directly to the /e/ foundation, because it has been able to fix some issues which Fairphone obviously cannot?
This debate was aleady seen many times on the forum I think.
I would tell you to go and found a phone company with fair conditions for workers, modular phone, etc and let’s see how you do, but it’s not really an argument.
Yes FP doesn’t work as well as other brands, and I’m trying to understand why people complain so much. There is room for a lot of improvement, sure, but FP are still “learning” and I consider they already managed quite a lot. I’m even surprised a phone such as the FP3 exists.
If you bought it from /e/ on their website yes. But /e/ is an open source project, so what’s your point?
Plus (or a bit more elaborate):
/e/ is independently developed from Fairphone OS.
So it’s not, that they solved problems that Fairphone does not solve. They are working on their own track/software; and since they are doing a Google-free OS, the architecture/software is not exactly comparable.
Actually I have two points:
- Fairphone have not been able to fix some issues for almost a year now.
- When users experience these issues, they are advised to switch to /e/ in the forum.
That makes me think Fairphone let the (/e/) community solve these issues. And when someone claims that there is no solution after almost a year, all you hear is “Fairphone is a small company, …”, and “Found your own company!” So annoying! If Fairphone cannot do it but /e/, they should team up with the Fairphone developers and integrate the fixes in their OS. That really would be a fruitful collaboration.
Isn’t teaming up essentially what they’re doing? Users have the option of installing /e/ or even ordering an FP3 with /e/ pre-installed, after all.
As for fixes, I’d be surprised if FP weren’t closely looking at /e/'s code to look for improvements to their own. What makes you think they aren’t? Sure, their development process is slower than /e/'s as they have to produce a guaranteed-to-work-or-your-money-back version of Android that will be used and abused by neophytes and nerds alike, but that’s hardly an indictment, more a statement about how different types of software development work.
The “guaranteed-to-work-or-your-money-back” version of Android does not exist, because Android has become the new Windows. (I wonder if any Windows user ever got back the money.)
However, the situation about the FP3 definitely is a bad one, because audio or Bluetooth issues are not fixed in the OS, but allayed. Regarding audio, users must reboot the phone to be able to use it again. Fairphone has been aware of these issues for almost one year, and they have made themselves scarce since several months.
Fairphone OS and /e/ OS are both Android 9, so there is not that much difference to apply and to implement specific code from /e/. It already exists, that is what I meant when I said that developers from both sides should team up and “enlighten” each other.
But the partnership with the /e/ foundation seems to be exclusively unilateral. They market the FP3 with their own OS and support for it. So, if /e/ OS is the “better” (because stable) software for the FP3, and if the “better” code snippets from /e/ are not applied from Fairphone to their factory OS, why would they have any further interest to proceed its software development when the /e/ foundation does it for them anyway? The message Fairphone are sending to their users basically says: “When you experience stability issues, try /e/ OS, we just cannot fix our own one!”
You compare /e/ and FPOS. As I read here on this forum, and as @BertG said, they don’t have the same construction, they’re not coded the same way (see this article) and FPOS must obtain the Google certification, which /e/ doesn’t, so they can take shortcuts that FP probably can’t.
For those wanting the official Google apps (and they are a majority), FP can’t ship the FP3 with /e/. And what’s the problem with FP doing the hardware and /e/ the software? Why not?
You have linked to an article that describes the circumstances of supporting the Qualcomm MSM8974 (Snapdragon 801) processor in recent Android OS generations. This article has nothing to do with the FP3, because both OS versions for it are from the same generation: 9 (Pie). In regard to fixes like those for Bluetooth, it should be quite easy to take the /e/ code and to use it for the Fairphone OS.
The problem starts with the installation and ends with more problems running different apps that would run flawlessly on factory (Google) Android.
Ok sorry, this was for the FP2… But what I wanted to illustrate was that custom ROMs could take shortcuts and do things a bit more brutally than official OSes from manufacterers. And this is well explained.
But then I don’t understand what you mean, as you said before:
Maybe we should explain here that /e/ OS is a custom ROM, too. I would not want to have it installed on my FP3 if I had one. But some parts of custom ROMs can be taken to fix issues in various other ROMs of the same Android generation. Everyone who writes about Fairphone being a small company, and that they still had to learn and to understand, etc. should see that the solutions are already there, Fairphone just have to pick them, just like fruits from the tree.
The issues in Fairphone OS which I described are related to hardware, mainly to audio and Bluetooth, while those in /e/ OS are related to software. Regarding hardware support, /e/ does the job that Fairphone should have done.
You clearly state after that issues with /e/ are software related and issues with FPOS are hardware related (which is false as FPOS and /e/ are both OSes, so it can’t be hardware related, then it would be a problem with the phone itself, or your sentence wasn’t well formulated). So they wouldn’t be the same issues. So not the same solutions.
I really don’t understand your point.
Absolutely correct, they are not the same issues. But most of those that exist in FPOS have been solved by /e/ in /e/ OS, as we can see from various feedback, even in this forum.
If you know what an OS integrated hardware driver is, you also know that it is a part of the OS ROM itself. E.g., Lineage OS would not run on any hardware without the necessary drivers made for it. These drivers are written and provided mainly by the component manufacturer, which, in most cases, is Qualcomm. They continously provide updates that improve hardware functionality, making the OS more stable. /e/ monitors these changes and implements them step by step, especially when things turn to the better.
Furthermore, the progress of /e/ OS for the FP3 can be monitored in their respective Gitlab repository. They have nothing to hide, which is why I cannot understand that Fairphone do not seem to be interested in /e/ solutions to hardware issues for the same Android generation. The partnership with /e/ would be ideal to stick heads together and make FPOS as stable as /e/ OS, because they really care.
How do you happen to know that?
Maybe they are in contact and it simply is not that easy?
Maybe it*s not just picking a fruit from a tree, because being compliant with Google rules and integrating Google get’s in the way of solving those problems?
We are just doing nothing but uneducated guesswork as we don’t know, what is going on behind the scenes of Fairphone headquarters.
There is just the Corona crisis, bringing Andoid 9 to the FP2, fixing problems with FP3 and most likely lots of things we have no idea about (maybe developing new devices, problems with production in China …?).
And yes, they are a small company and might have taken on one too many tasks.
But regarding e.g. bluetooth-pairing with cars, they are not the only ones having those problems, as this page shows:
Because I do not know it, I wrote that it seems to be so.
Ah, fixing Bluetooth issues is not Google compliant while not fixing them is compliant? Very interesting…
But it works perfectly in /e/ OS on a FP3:
That lack of information is what meant with
When it is about press and marketing, they obviously can communicate, but their after sales support is a total disaster, it already was before Corona has arrived. (I know that this does not sound nice, but someone has to name it.)
I wanted to buy an FP3 for my mother in law, she is 71 years old. She might be lucky, because she drives a Renault Modus and no Ford vehicle. But actually you can image what I am trying to explain: She would open the FP3 package, turn the phone on, and after some configuration steps she expects the thing to be ready to go, with a “Googlish” FPOS. No experiments, no thoughts about inconvenient flashing /e/, no tricks, just thoughts about a working phone, like anyone expects that. She is not a geek, but an average user!
Yes, but you keep repeating it and that’s - besides annoying - making it a kind of statement.
What nonsense is that?
Maybe I didn’t put it clear enoug. The Google compliance might cause troubles in fixing the issue. Like some obstacle getting in the way. So not fixing it is due to not getting around that compliance issue. But it’s total speculation on my side, since I am no way a programmer or geek.
Yes. And /e/ is a different OS, that - most prominently - lacks Google.
Like you are the only one or the first.
Even I stated this since long long ago. And I will not start argueing it now.
Still, Corona can have an influence on their workforce i.e. programmers.
I am with you on that.
Still, one can not expect them to explain publicly, if they should have trouble behind the scenes. They want to get a foothold in the mass market and sure won’t risk that by issuing problem reports. I myself - to be honest - would understand that, though they obviously should work on their communication.
For binding and reliable information, one would have to contact Fairphone themselves.
So, that’s it for me regarding this topic.
The situation about the FP3 is annoying, not my “statement”.
Information from Fairphone about fixing issues has never been binding. That is why I cannot recommend Fairphone to the average user. I switched to Lineage OS with my FP2, and I have no hardware related issues anymore which I had with FPOS. Now, if Fairphone would only learn how to handle their own hardware, but the same story goes on with the FP3.
Compared with the FP2, providing feedback has become even worse:
The FP3 hit the market almost a year ago. Because there has not been a bugtracker since, I am getting the impression that they are not interested in listening to their users.
Thank you for your time.
Xiaomi for example offer only 1 OS version upgrade, which in some cases may result with only 5-6 months of major OS upgrades
in comparison the FP’s 5 years of upgrading renders just about so unbelievable that many might not had believed in such a promise, would it not been given by the Fairphone endeavor
This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.