Check the official message above:
It’s always easier for unofficial versions, as they can just shrug their shoulders, if something is not working safe or reliable, because it’s a non commercial project. Fairphone on the other hand, has to make sure, that they don’t put their customers to a big security risk or release an unstable system.
As I wrote: It is not a technical issue it is about certification and . Why don’t FP tell this and only mention the problematic kernel issue as reason for not offering A14? I do not understand their way to communicate to customers…
I have some sympathy for this, because it’s a difficult story to tell. Certification is a technical issue, or perhaps more like a technical compromise that allows Google to control the quality of the user experience for devices marketed with their “Android” brand name.
With every new version of Android, new features are added, existing features improved and to some degree security properties tightened. These features rely on the underlying building blocks (the kernel or operating system, the hardware) to behave according to spec. Hence with every version of android the compliance tests that validate the behaviour of test these building blocks, required for certification, become larger and more picky. At some point devices fall off the bandwagon, sometimes because HW just isn’t up to the standard required for newer android (see for example the fingerprint sensor issue with FP3’s android 13 upgrade), sometimes it’s a missing kernel feature that requires rebasing to a newer LTS or the SoC vendor to provide patches as backporting is infeasible.
So Google is saying “either you pass our compliance tests, or we can’t vouch for the user experience and hence won’t allow you to 1) use our Android brand name, 2) ship with the Play Store and play store services.” The latter would be unacceptable for many users because the absence of the play store+services would diminish the usability of their phone. Remember the play store is still the primary source for the apps they use and its “services” provides by proxy some of the requirements for e.g. banks to say “we trust the security of this device enough to permit internet banking”.
Now if you state it like that, you’ll get all sorts of discussion around whether not providing an Android 14 upgrade is Google’s fault for making their compliance tests too strict, the SoC vendors fault for not continuing the software support for their SoCs and making it artificially difficult for others to do so (with their downstream kernel dev), or Fairphone’s fault for not doing the development themselves. Fingerpointing will just lead to all sorts of anger, and isn’t productive. Hence the messaging is kept a bit simpler just to convey “we’ve considered all the options and don’t see a feasible way”.
I don’t want to point fingers. But everything you correctly write counteracts Fairphone’s efforts towards sustainability.
Thats a bit exaggerated dont you think?
Remind that device plans start 1-2 years before launch, what brings us to apprpx 2017 for the FP3.
Dont you think that such is acutually a reason to pick a rather rare SOC for the FP5, which shows FP actually still tries to improve longivity as much as possible and is still learning?
Such general thought-terminating cliches like “all against longivity, sustainability…” are actually the comments I meant above with negativity. Why focusing on what is not yet is perfect instead of seeing what was achieved already?
I am very happy to read that my FP will get two more years of security updates, I feared the end would be sooner. Now I just have to make sure I don’t drop it in the toilet in the meantime xD
@harmen97
Very important: don’t flush! 
Security support until 2026 was planned anyway, but now only with Android 13 instead of 14, so I don‘t see the good news.
Well, I would call it “challenging promises of sustainability”.
If your brand stands for longevity and sustainability (like I suppose Fairphone does), what excatly makes the difference in terms of long term support compared to Apple devices for example?
And yes, supplying certain parts in electronics over such a long period is really difficult (supporting devices based on those even more so), but that is the topic to solve, if you want to sell sustainable products in that market. I am completely with you, that we should concentrate on the positive aspects which Fairphone still offers a lot, however challenging their promises I do not want to call negativity.
That they offer longer support than ANY other Android smartphone maybe? And have done so since their 2015 FP2. Back then nobody offered software support as long as Apple does and other brands’ “progress” didn’t seem likely Android would catch up. Until Fairphone entered the stage.
That’s one aspect where I’m with yvmuell: to me personally it leaves the impression of negativity when people focus on something not being #1 in all aspects, on where someone “failed” (IMHO that word is often not appropriate), on broken promises (that often turn out to just have been wishful thinking), etc.
I’m not saying that criticism is bad, to me it often is the wording that makes it too negative in my book. That’s what sticks around and might dissuade people from using a Fairphone because “everyone says they don’t keep their promises” even if they might just be totally happy with it.
And if someone needs a reminder: the official promise of software support for the FP3 when it came out was 5 years with the intention to go for 7.
Hi,
I wholeheartedly agree that Fairphone is ahead in the race towards sustainability and longevity. And of course I like the idea of focusing on what works.
Still, i think this is the case of badly managed expectations. The forum is the only space I have seen Fairphone saying that there will be no update to Android14 for FP3(+) users. In their socials, there are only general statements like ‘we are working on that, stay tuned’. I feel that would lead to several posts/expressions of disappointment once the news is officially out there.
yes, the official promise is 5 years. Still, it might have been the mistake to say in interviews about the plans to provide A14 for FP3 as these raises people expectations. I am also not so sure how feasible it is to provide security updates for a year after “the standard end of life”.
If that fails, it puts FP again in a very uncomfortable position. Since these seven years of support (not officially promised) are repeated in the socials and the internet.
Not to end on a negative note, perhaps stories like these are a good call at least for myself to adjust the expectations and be more realistic about what is possible in five years time. I made a mistake of taking rumours and suggestions as promises set in stone and will not be doing it again 
Does that affect s FP3 running e/OS??
I don’t think so. That’s only for stock Android with Google certification.
Then that is one less worry and also a fair incentive to get as far aways from Google spyware as possible.
I can’t see how that is related to the announcement of Android 14 not coming to the FP3(+) officially.
If this only affects Google Android and not AOSP would this not be an incentive to migrate to something other than Google, or maybe look at Linux projects like Mobian or Ubtouch
Thanks for the update, your efforts are appreciated as always. I have a proposal: what about introducing a time limited special offer for the protective cases, as done a couple of years ago?
I asked the question on the e/OS forum
looks like if you degoogle your FP3 and it will live longer
It will be interesting to see how rival Android Operating Systems of the FB3/FB3+ deal with their kernels.
As it was written before: Developers of free and independent OSes don’t worry about Google’s approval and they do not need to, as they are not acting commercially.