So, are you saying the FP concept is but a thin veil disguising pure profit motives?
Fairphone is not motivated first by environmental values but by fairness (people working in good conditions and being paid enough to live well). And this is not related to how bulky the phone is.
2 Likes
Just to add further to the above which hopefully purchasers are aware of as the primary reason for Faitphone’s existence and hence the purchasers motivation, the idea of passing wealth to poorer people surely would enhance their consumer ability and helping to put them a step up on the ladder.
Hence selling more of ‘their’ products’ helps them at the cost of
- The richer people who buy the phones
- So why not have them a little of the frail side
- Equally why not make special cases that are tougher as an option,
All at an environment coats as mentioned earlier, which I really am not concerned about.
But two issues worth noting are
- There are two FP3+s and one FP4 in the family with no complaints
- Fairphone isn’t my business and they do what they consider the most viable option, who am I to say what another should or should not do.
As for asking this niche user market well that seems, in the best possible way, entertainment for the bored and really not that funny.
So back to digging holes and building walls out of brash.
Hoping everyone has a lovely day, may be overly hopeful, but I can hardly say not to
1 Like
Interesting interpretation on the reason for the existence of Fairphone there Amoun. Hate to burst your bubble, but just take a look at the ‘about us’ page. It is all about fairness for both the planet and consumers. At the core of that fairness is the minimisation of environmental waste…
I am a little perplexed by your lack of concern at environmental cost. You may well be fortunate enough to be able to financially ‘afford’ to change your phone every week,. However, the little blue dot we all inhabit certainly cannot afford to.
Frankly I’m at a loss regarding your comment on previous FP iterations. Factually you are wrong about the complaints. All products have complaints as no product can be perfect for all situations. That said, improved protection in the form of case choices has positive environmental impact because it reduces the number of repairs ultimately needed as well as reducing the time spent on such repairs - all part of the environmental ‘cost of repair’.
Regards
David
1 Like
A bit off topic 
The about page is an advertising face, my notion is that the fair trade is the prime mover.
It’s no secret: we’re out to change the world. Fairphone puts people and the planet first.
We care about human rights and worker well-being.
We care about the climate and our planet’s delicate ecosystem.
Fairness is between those sentient beings that give and exchange, I don’t consider the planet a sentient being.
Of course reducing consumption can be seen as being fair to others but I note that when others are given more money for their work they just consume more. Still I’d rather be fair at destroying the planet and support fair trade which seems at odds with reducing consumerism.
Fair to people’s environment # someone wants anew case.
A bio/recyclable at £40 or a trashy one at £10.
Money spent is consumerism using a third party to think spending more money helps reduce make no sense.
So back to the topic. No one has to buy a phone let alone case the production of both destroy the environment but at leats we can pay other to join in the fun.
So Fairphone could make another case and spend more on the workers but given their financially focus can’t really afford to do that even if would employ another fairly paid factory worker.
Even fair trade has it’s limits it seems.
In some countries the law starts to think differently. For example lake Mary Jane in the USA is a legal person now and all people are allowed to sue contaminators in the name of this lake.
I think this is a good tendency and if you follow that path then the whole planet can be treated this way.
Of course humans need the planet to live - but this is true for all other species and biotopes, too.
So, they need to get the same rights like us humans - even if many people think they personally are the most important beings in the world and have the right to take everything the world has to offer for themselves.
1 Like
OK keeping off topic it seems.
The rights that you speak of are laws that are enforced by coecion and violence, not something I want to expand.
Privaledges it was most humans have over other animals due to their intellingence and in many cases thier size.
Privaledges are innate to humans and can be enhanced. Producing laws is a privalege that humans expand upon. Sure other animals have laws but not to govern the use of humans or a lake. The use of the lake is down to those that have the strength to exploit it. Some people ared dying of thirst as they have no such privalege to access the lake, which is now protected by many laws about who can and who cannot use it.
Giving it a name and calling it sentient is a selling point to make the lake more valuable to those that can and do control it.
So a lot of this is down to the tone of the topic.
- First there is a question
- About another ‘being’
- There is a law about what people have to do
All because soemone is not happy with the privalege of buying the phone as advertised and wants to make an issue of it.
Protecting the phone and protecting the planet are all done to satisfy our consumerism
What you are speaking about is exactly “the law of the jungle”. Since humans are the most intelligent (or strongest), we force our interests on all other species in the world.
This is actually quite contradictory, because all civilized people are against the law of the jungle and we create laws to protect the weak.
And regarding this and other lakes, you don´t need to forbid anyone to use it. You just need to forbid extreme exploitation. If everybody in this area (including animals) takes the water they need for trinking, then everything is fine. But if someone wants to do fishing for profit or wants to dump his hazardous waste there, then he is forcing his interests on all other people (and animals). Again: This is exactly the law of the jungle.
And to prevent this we need laws to protect minorities and the nature.
I think there is a nother case in Australia, where a river got a similar legal status. This was done for the indigenes there to be able to protect their living environment against big poluting companies.
Are you still saying that this law (in this case) was made for the indigenes to “control” the ressource “river” there (in a negative emphasis)?
And to finish my argument:
I would be happy if we didn´t need a law to be more considerate to nature or other people. But, since many humans are greedy or plainly stupid, we still need them.
For example: In Germany it´s allowed to pick mushrooms in the forests but we still have a law, which says you are only allowed to pick a maximum quantity per day. Every normal person says: “That´s stupid - who does pick so many mushrooms that the forest become barren?”, but the law was made because there have been people, who have plundered whole forest before (probably for selling the mushrooms later).
1 Like
Did you check this one out?
Das normale “Protective Case” für das Fairphone 3 (in grün, aber das spielt ja wohl keine Rolle).
Melde mich erst jetzt Verzeihung - hatte Corona.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.