Why FP3 comes with an OS which is not privacy oriented?

Sorry I dont know that that. :frowning:

1 Like

Ask your parents or your grandparents to install a new OS after they buy it, let’s see it it’s easy…

It’s clearly not easy because if it’s easy as a click, FP would be able to give the choice of both OS.

I’m sorry but the statistics of the 5% mentioned by @BertG is wrong because it doesn’t include the people who wish to have a Privacy oriented Os + it doesn’t include all the people who doesn’t know that they technically have the choice + it doesn’t include all the people aware about privacy and stuff.

A statistic would be very fair if during the shopping process people have a clear choice or at least an option like “I prefer a Fairphone with OpenOs on it” and they give the instructions on how to install it…

2 Likes

Google doesn’t/didn’t allow this.

It also doesn’t include the millions of potential future FP users who wouldn’t buy a phone that doesn’t come delivered with iOS or Google Android.

5 Likes

So it means, if a company wants to sell a phone with GoogleOS, the company signs an exclusivity agreement? Is it true or an assumption?
Because if it’s true, I think it’s against the competition laws in Europe… Isn’t it? And if it’s true, they won’t be able to release an official FPOpenOs isn’t it?

I’m not sure there are milions of potential future FP users because if these milions of user would care about what FP is fighting for, they won’t buy Samsung, Huawei, Apple and all others… It’s been 6 years FP is on the market, the FP users are clearly growing that’s true and I’m happy for that. However, (no offence) as long as FP won’t be at the same level in term of performance/design/price as the others competitors, I’m not sure the potential market for FP is milionS. So as a very small opinion, I kindly suggest to give the choice of users and communicate about privacy.

As it has been said:

And Fairphone could at least officially clarify this, maybe give a roadmap and say for exemple “When we reach XXXstep we will be able to provide a FP with alternative OS preinstalled”

Oh, by the way (by writing this, I just got an idea) what about partner with someone else to install alternative OS on the phone?
Look: on the official website the buyer has the choice between GoogleOS or AlternativeOS. if the buyer clicks on alternativeOS, he/she is redirected to a partner (or a subsidary) which has naked Fairphones and have the choice of whateverOs the buyer want to install on it.
What about this? what do you think?

1 Like

Here is a news item on that matter from last year: Google fined a record $5 billion by the EU for Android antitrust violations - The Verge

Up to that point, Google’s licensing terms did not allow phone manufactures to sell a phone with an Android fork (e.g. custom ROM) preinstalled if the same model was also sold with Google Android. That was the/one reason why the Fairphone Open OS needed to be installed manually on the FP2.

I haven’t really followed up on what happened after the EU fine but I’m not aware of any manufacturer that now lets you pick either Google Android or something else during the order process.

5 Likes

Yes, that is illegal and Google was sued over it in July ’18.

No, because Open OS is not preinstalled.

That would work.

This probably wouldn’t. In their online shop FP can list partners where you can alternatively get the device, but if they advertised a partner like that they’d probably be somewhat liable for what that partner sells. Also all other partners would be mad for not being advertised equally.

6 Likes

Ahahah ! Well, it’s also his role somehow. However, I suggest you to lead the FP community to here: Request a Device - /e/OS community and look, the most viewed subject is this one : Fairphone 3 FP3 support on /e/ - #34 by violoncello - Testing - /e/OS community :wink: what a coincidence :slight_smile:

So, does that means FP is OK to provide naked phones to an organisation or a company which will be in charge to install a Privacy Oriented Os on it?
If yes, how to do that? Who shall I contact? Shall we organise a crowdfunding to see if people are interested and ready to finance this action?

Ok, so redirected to a page where all the partners provide their advantages (local service, alternativeOS, language support…)

I just want to thanks everyone who contribute to this discussion. Thank you @BertG @paulakreuzer @AnotherElk @Volker @ElKrasso @Morrigan @FairOpenIsGreat @Stanzi @Ingo for your attention, the time and energy you spent to answer to my questions, to guide me and being kind even the debate was sometimes spicy. This discussion is a great example of collaboration, sharing, caring and finally constructive discussion.
For the new readers I think you have more or less the answers of this main question “Why FP3 comes with a non privacy oriented OS ?”

3 Likes

Don’t get me wrong, I’d also like to see more people use OpenOS, but the thing is that most people don’t want to, because they have nothing to hide. Of course that argument is nonsense (see e.g. this DuckDuckGo blog article), but it’s had to get people to change their habits, even if it adds only a little inconvenience (Aurora Store is working fine most of the time).
Having a G00gle-free phone however doesn’t really help if they keep using Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok and all the other crap on it, which the vast majority of people will do.

8 Likes

Sure. I didn’t mean it as a bad thing. Just saying that the poll can’t be representative.

I don’t think FP will ship phones without an OS on them - every little modification for some phones is a lot of extra work for logistics. But that shouldn’t make a difference does it?

I don’t think FP will approve if you as a person contact them. This would be a business partnership, so obviously a company would have to contact FP.

2 Likes

But he could tell them of the idea, in case they did not consider it sofar. Maybe they pick it up; although this would be more likely, when done by a company.

Hi @juliengarrigue! :smile:

I think you already know that I think FP3 and /e/ would be a good fit for each other, but I agree with the majority opinion here - privacy is not Fairphone’s main mission, addressing supply chain issues is. I think /e/ has more work to do before Fairphone can seriously consider them a partner, but IMO /e/ is probably the most appropriate alternative OS for Fairphone to partner with.

And anyway, if Gael was really interested don’t you think he would already have called Eva and Bas? Maybe they’re already plotting something :wink:

TTFN :slight_smile:

Hi everyone!
I’m a new user really concerned about privacy and security, so i’d like to ask you if the company will adopt a TRULY fair os like postmarketOS (I know that, at the time of writing, a lot of things are not working, but i think that it could became a more reliable and secure choice than it is Android).
If the aswer to the previous question is no, i’d like to know if there is a possibility that the phone will be compatible with security focused Android ROMs such as GrapheneOS, or if the Fairphone official os is being developed with the less proprietary software as possible (like The Open GApps Project does with the Pico Package for example).
At the beginning of this topic i’ve proposed postmarketOS, becouse Android is being developed and maintained mostly by Google and the Open Handset Alliance) and both could have modified the os to fit their needs to collect data from users.

(English isn’t my mother tongue so corrections and constructive criticism are welcome!)

1 Like

If you’d update your first comment further up to highlight that this is outdated information, it would make reading this thread top to bottom a little less irritating :wink:

Not true. I have set up my FP3 now and while I can uninstall most Google Apps, it seems that the FP3 cannot receive SMS without GMS and GSF. So with Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram et al. I can decide whether I want them on my phone, but I cannot decide with Google Apps. (PS.: Many phones come with Facebook preinstalled, so my claim doesn’t even hold there. For FP3 it is true though.)

1 Like

I’d like to summarize the arguments a bit. Basically, most of your are saying Fairphone doesn’t provide a privacy oriented OS for their phones because:

  1. They are a small company and focuses on the ecological goal first
  2. There isn’t many people interested to buy a privacy focused phone

While this seems logical, I feel like the situation could be very different.

First of all, about the interest for a privacy-oriented phone. I think you’re really underestimating the number of persons which are looking for a smartphone like that. The current situation, with everybody being tracked every time, is not like that because people doesn’t care. It is like that because companies make money doing it, so they are going to do all they can to keep you in the cage. But people wants to be free. Maybe not teenagers with snapchat, but I’m sure more than 50% of the people over 40 are like this. And those are the one with the money to buy phones.

As already being said in that topic, the 5% number is wrong IMO, as it doesn’t count people who will never flash a new OS themselves, and more importantly all the persons looking for a privacy-oriented phone who never bought a Fairphone.

Now the important point: there is no privacy-respectful phone on the market at the moment. Fairphone isn’t marketed like this. See how the Librem and the PinePhone are exciting everybody: there is a huge demand, but those companies never created phones before, and will do a lot of mistakes before doing it right. It toke more than 6 years for FP to be where there are now. I’m spending hours everyday chatting with PinePhone and Ubuntu Touch people. There really is something going on for linux phones right now. This is a very big opportunity, does Fairphone want to be part of it, or on the side?

And to the argument “only geeks care about Linux and privacy on their phone”. Well, maybe. But geeks are the people who “knows about electronic stuff”. It’s the nerd nephew everyone in the family is going to ask for help when looking for a new phone. And he will ultimately be the one who will choose the phone the others will buy. So to have a good reputation in the linux / tech community is very important. This is how mozilla initially spread Firefox when Internet Explorer was 95% of the market, and it worked very well.

Now, to the “very limited resources / focus on the environment” part. There, I think you’re overestimating the cost for Fairphone to see the FP3 supporting other OSes. This is not the way free software communities work. Do you know that Pine64 is producing thousands of PinePhone without creating an OS for it at all?. I’m not saying the phones will ship without an OS, I’m saying they are selling the phones and give back to FOSS community the money they are making doing so (read more about that on their blog). Thanks to that money, communities are able to make their OS working well on the phone. And Pine64 can then ship the phone allowing the users to pick the OS of their choice. Exactly like computers, and this should be the situation for phones. There are already more that 5 OSes targeted for the first end-user batch of March 2020. They are estimating 50k devices sold in that first batch, thanks only to the people interested of running a real GNU/Linux on their smartphone. I have no idea how many phones FP is selling, but this number doesn’t seem small.

A summary, you ask? Building a ecological and privacy-oriented phone is possible in my opinion, even with the limited resources Fairphone has. This is a business strategy question, they are the ones who have to decide. But looking at the tech market, there is clearly a card to play.

What should they do if they wanted to go there? The phone bootloader is already unlocked, that is great. They are providing the kernel sources, this is very nice. Now, work with FOSS communities from the very beginning, when picking up components of the phone, to have as little of binary blobs as possible, and succeed to push in mainline kernel upstream as many patches as possible. Just doing that would make the interest of the tech community explodes. Then if you can, give some moneys to the communities, and you will find some shiny OSes on your phone. Also, hardware kill switches would be awesome.

Wow, that post was a long one.

I agree, but you also have to account that for FP to be where they are today they had to offer something of value from the beginning. I think the argument that FP doesn’t have the resources really is genuine since even making a fork of an OS is not a simple task, nevermind maintain it over time and make it compatible with non-mainstream hardware components.

more than 50% of the people over 40 are like this.

This I disagree with. Everybody’s experience is different for sure, but mine says that barely anyone is even remotely aware of the privacy implications of using any kind of software these days. And those who are, even tech-savvy people, including software engineers I know personally, don’t give a schnitzel about it.

Most people won’t buy a smartphone that doesn’t work properly by today’s standards. If you even mention werid and cryptic gecky stuff like Lineage, Sailfish or even “Linux” and you’ve already lost them as customers. Even more so if you charge 300EUR~450EUR for it. I could go on this topic, you get the idea: there’s no real alternative to Android today for a working, reliable and private OS on a smartphone.

People are not looking for a privacy oriented smartphone. If they were really looking they could just Google it (and be sure they would use Google) and this and other forums would be much, much larger. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they’d take it but only after whatever company comes can prove it really works out of the box.

In conclusion, there are 2 reasons why I think FP can’t and shouldn’t get heavily involved in maintainig their own pre-installed OS:

  1. Earth’s resources are limited and we need to start making smart decisions fast. Climate change is already having consequences and they’re not going to wait for anyone.
  2. On a related note, even if it will become more difficult the longer we left this topic unaddressed, we can always fight back against privacy invasive practices and software. What I mean is, we can actually hold this front a little longer so it’s best to do things right.

Let them succeed first, then worry about them doing the right thing and improve on the their OS later, which again is no easy task and many others and more experienced have already failed in this task before.

4 Likes

You’re missing an important word. They are not yet providing such an OS.

I highly doubt that is true. Maybe 50% of people are aware that they are in a cage, but only like 20% are aware of alternatives and only 5% are willing to go through the trouble of freeing themselves.

No, but there are some phones that are as privacy-respectful as Fairphone would be. Even if FP released an Open OS for the FP3 it would still be proprietary hardware and have lots of proprietary firmware. So it wouldn’t really stand out among other phones where you can flash LOS for example.

No, it’s not. It’s unlockable. The FP2 was unlocked, but that meant they had to pay a fee for every FP2 sold to unlock it. With the FP3 you’ll have to pay to unlock it yourself if that is what you want. At least that is what they told us at the efct19.

4 Likes

What does that mean?
I unlocked the bootloader, until now nobody wanted to collect any money :slight_smile: .

3 Likes

There is - unfortunately - proof out there, that this is not correct.
It is not just, that people out there do use Google to find somethint on the internet, while there are search engines like duckduckgo.com, around 4/5 of all people do it also using Chrome or Safari, while the marketshare of Firefox is under 5%.

https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Even if the percentage differs between the sources, Chrome is used by at least around 50%.
And that is, where people could chose and switch quite easily.

But, that would - in the end - mean, that they rely on the community for an OS.
I am not so sure, if that counts for a healthy business plan.
Whom to address, if the OS is not available on time or if it has serious issues.
While I really love what communities like the ones for LOS or Ubuntu touch are doing, that is nothing a company can rely on, there is noone, they could contract, even if they give money to those communities.

4 Likes