No. Open OS is not that different from FP OS. Lineage is.
I don’t think anybody but you misunderstands it that way.
FP3 is different from FP2 and it runs a different Android version. But nobody said they wouldn’t still release an Open OS for the FP3. With the FP2 it also came quite a while after the device was released.
Well, duh. Go to a Google event and the situation will be opposite.
Yes and they prioritized selling more devices instead of selling to a fringe community.
Their main aim is and will always be to change the problems with the supply chain in the electronics industry and they have a better chance at that if they don’t pursue too many other goals simultaneously.
A forum poll is never representative at all. Especially if the CEO of /e/ mobilizes for it on social media.
I had exactly the same question in mind. I’d really love to be wrong, but it seems that we are facing another saddly case of using solidarity and enviromentalism as marketing strategy. It is a too obvious contradiction in the FP philosophy.
I still have to read the whole post with all the replies, and I am not a native english speaker, I’ll need some time. What is for sure is that I am not going to buy a product in order to protect and save other’s rights, when some one is violating mine.
Not just in terms of privacy. They use the open source work of others to make money without returning the customized source code from the beginning. Fairphone simply violates the GPL.
You’ve read the other thread. No real statement from Fairphone. Except they write after three months, zhat they now try to get the source code from the contract programmer. The moderator just closed it. No more discussion.
You know, it’s really tempting to let people like you just wallow around in their own irrationality and old knowledge, probably bugging off somewhen to pester another project that tries to better some things, but we ought to be nice here I guess …
Guys, you really stress the patience of everyone in this forum trying to help others.
Here’s just my statements (and mine personally, nothing Fairphone, as this whole forum is nothing official Fairphone).
The thread was closed, because it was repeating itself endlessly, without any new argument, just new open-source addicts starting to complain again. It is now reopened, as Fairphone has published the source code.
Fairphone is a small company, that is trying to change the business. Their first aim was the fairness in sourcing the minerals and working conditions. They have come a long way to this regard, even other, bigger companies are starting to follow their example.
The open-source community, focusing on a Google-free OS has shown to be a minority of around 5% of Fairphone users. Although they offered an easy way to an Open OS for years now, this percentage did not grow. Therefore consider yourself just a very loud minority of Fairphone users, trying to sound more important.
Your selfrightousness is really telling more about yourself, than it is about Fairphone. You do not adress the responsible contact point, which would be “Customer Support” and you do never ever consider any argument. It’s always “… but the rules …” with you. Like you always stick to rules like this.
For the vast majority of Fairphone users the fair minerals, fair working conditions and repairability are much more important than publishing the source code or having an open-source OS available.
So, if you have something new to tell, please do so. I am really interested in everything new. But hearing the old complaints over and over again is quite tiresome.
As it goes against logic to tackle every problem of the smartphone industry with a small startup at once.
To stay in business they had to prioritize and - fortunately for me and the majority - they prioritzed usability and adressing the masses.
While your focus is fairness for you (as Queen said “I want it all and I want it now”), the focus of FP and me is with the less privileged in mines and factories far away.
I see your point and I really respect it. What I am trying to say is that coherence has to be a priority and it is possible to protect all rights for us all. Here’s a high risk of letting the power companies to violate good hopefull projects, because they corrupt them.
You were pretty right on your last post 14 min. ago, so I’m off. There’s no need to keep discussing on this topic. I’ll keep an eye on it, but that’s all.
I’m wondering just one last thing: to get a Fairphone with Open Os, do we have to install it by ourselves or can we buy a Fairphone with Open Os preinstalled already. I mean, during the buying process do we have a clear choice between GoogleOs and OpenOs?
Every FP2 was sold with FPOS. While I’d also prefer having the option to select the OS you want before buying*, I get that this would mean a lot of additional logistics effort at FP, and the people who want to have an alternative OS are able to install it very easily (although I’d like to see it as an option in the Updater, which shouldn’t be so hard to do).
*I use and FP2 with LOS15 (Android 8) and obviously no GApps, and I definitely won’t use an FP3 until there is a G00gle-free OS for it (but even then I won’t switch, because my FP2 is working fine and the fairest phone is the one you already own)
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…
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?
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.
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.
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…)