My English is not sufficient and I’m not sure that I very understood. But please leave us free of our choices: I am not a specialist but I try to escape Google and other Facebook. I did’nt charge the access to Google blind, and I go from there very well
Applications “open sources” provided and regularly put up to date on f-droid.org by Free Software Foundation Europe e.V. https://fsfe.org are for me enough largely like alternatives.
Gad from France
2 Likes
Very interesting discussion… it seems that the greatest thing about the Fairphone is not the phone itself but its users are.
We seem to agree that choice is important, but there are quite diverse opinions on what Fairphone should ship as default. I want to add a point which I think is important: information. Most people have never heard of free software, alternatives to Google services on android, etc… not only because they do not care in principle but also because they believe that they cannot understand how a smartphone works anyway. So whatever Fairphone does, I think there should definitely be some nice leaflet which informs the user about his choices (and their implications).
3 Likes
I agree. Actually I believe that the troubles, which arose with having to reinstall Google Apps after every update, are beneficial for reaching FP’s goals. If there suddenly is no app store any more, people are forced to try things they would never have tried with another phone, where GApps are preinstalled. By doing so, they find out that fiddling with their system is not as deterrent as they thought before, which encourages them. It’s another step to a self-confident smartphone user!
1 Like
Actually yes! Because if you just wan’t a phone with root, you could root almost every device out there. Or you could buy a lot cheaper device which is well supported on CyanogenMod. But you cannot buy another “fair” phone.
Or they simply have no interest in that and say the Fairphone is broken. I think it is never a good idea to force people to try alternatives. Ok, maybe sometimes it is, but not with a smartphone you rely on everyday. You wan’t thinks to work (I am not saying it does not work without Google Apps, just that i don’t buy that forced encouragement thing).
1 Like
[quote=“ben, post:64, topic:5582”]
if you just wan’t a phone with root, you could root almost every device out there.
[/quote]the good thing about FP is, that I do not need to lose the warranty nor hack the phone to do so.
[quote=“ben, post:64, topic:5582”]
Ok, maybe sometimes it is
[/quote]The daily OS updates are really too much to handle 
1 Like
There is something in don’t get in your point of view : you seem to think that people may be motivated enough to but a potentially more expensive, maybe not at the top of technology phone because it’s Fair. Yet, you think that this same people would not be willing to do an action as simple as install Google Apps if they want to use it?
Correct me if I wrong : yes, I can root any phone (when it works) but I will loose the guarantee by doing so, contrary to the Fairphone ? I may not know all the available phones, but the Fairphone, in addition to be fair, was the only one I knew that run Android (and so, the very convenient Google Play Store, I must say) AND was already rooted when I received it. So I had not to made a forbidden action that may result to broke my phone and loose my guarantee.
If I only wanted a rooted phone, yes, I would not have chosen the Fairphone. I wanted it Fair, open (as in “rooted so I can install/remove whatever I want”), and with piece easily replaceable. If I could not add or remove any app I wanted on my Fairphone, I would feel trapped, as the non rooted Android and Apple users.
“If you can’t open it, you don’t own it”. And so, what is the point of allowing us to open it, if we are not able to remove a single app, or control their permissions on our personal data, without losing any support ?
3 Likes
Actually, I agree with ben here. People would rather pay 50% more but not change their behavior.
2 Likes
I might not have been clear in that – i was trying to propose a general change of the way Fairphone handles it’s standard Android distribution towards a more „usual“ approach.
This thinking was coming from a) the current model might be irritating and uncomfortable for first time users (my reasoning for that can be seen above in quite a lot of posts) and b) my experience that software development is most times harder then you think and the Fairphone team being not very large, so i thought if a more typical approach was chosen, more time could be spend on software updates/security patches and supporting the community around modding the os and custom os, see part 3 of my original proposal.
With the above said, it is not about the “simple” install of Google Apps. I know they are willing to do that and they do so with the current FP1. It’s more the full package of minor annoyances with FP1 software: Having to install the Google App (and reinstalling after each update) and the constant software crashes until you reinstall Google Apps after each update and having to mind the additional security risk that comes with root access and not being able to use some apps because something called root some users might not even know what that means (and the custom Fairphone launcher, if you want). It’s the whole “bag” of thinks that might irritate general users and prevent them to get the best experience possible from a 300 to 400€ device.
So yes, if Google Apps were so easy to install AND software updates will get painless in the future, this would not really matter and certainly be understood (that Fairphone want’s to give users a choice). But i was thinking from the status quo and wanted to inspire some thinking and discussion about that.
Because i knew root is important to many, as well as being Google free, i added in step 3 of my original proposal that a) an easy method to regain root should be supplied and b) a distribution of AOSP without Google Apps should be supplied (be it as image or simply as all required source files, drivers and manuals to created such). This in my opinion is a better solution compared to the current FP1 image that even without Google Apps comes with a set of closed customised application (by MediaTek).
It was never about disallowing something. It was about changing the defaults from “rooted, without Google Apps” to “unrooted, with Google Apps” because i still think that suits mosts users better. Thanks to an unlocked/unlockable boot loader you can very easily install root. And for people wanting to stay away from Google, there was the idea of an AOSP distribution following the example of Sony. The thinking behind this includes the idea that users who want root are more interested in fiddling around with their devices internals that others (for nothing else root is required*) and possible more technically knowladgeable.
(* The FP1 came without bloatware and i suspect the FP2 will to, so no need for root simply to remove preinstalled Facebook or whatever.)
Ok, I see. I must agree that there are things in your list that annoy me to. I see your point. But for me, your “ideal” solution would be better : keep the choice to have a rooted phone WITH guarantee but without the bugs with GApps and headaches at each updates 
What annoys me in your proposal, it that it tend to make a Fairphone look more like a “non Fair” phone, by trying to be suitable for the average Android user. Maybe I am a little bit egocentric, but to me the Fairphone was not a phone to please the general public, but targeted to people carring for environment, social issues AND wanting be more free to do what we want with their Android phone.
I tend to think people that buy a Fairphone are not the average Android user, but are already aware of subjects as fair trade, environment but also data privacy. I get why Fairphone would want to change to reach more customer, but to me this kind of change would loose a little bit of the original idea behind the phone. But maybe I am too idealistic
2 Likes
[quote=“Aline”]Maybe I am a little bit egocentric, but to me the Fairphone was not a phone to please the general public, but targeted to people carring for environment, social issues AND wanting be more free to do what we want with their Android phone.
I tend to think people that buy a Fairphone are not the average Android user, but are already aware of subjects as fair trade, environment but also data privacy.[/quote]
I do not think that it is about pleasing someone or not, but about making people aware of fair trade and fair electronics, who normally wouldn’t think about these things. So I do not think that Fairphone should adapt to “the average smartphone user” (whatever this means, see the Community Personas and survey results), but be itself and stick to their goals, and at the same time explain to people why they stick to their goals.
2 Likes
“pleasing” was maybe not the correct word here, I was trying to talk about the target of the Fairphone. Sorry if I am not very clear, and yes, I agree with you, Fairphone should stick to their goals.
1 Like
Just to make things clear: FP team does not develop the OS. Google, MediaTek and Kwamecorp do.
Oh, btw,
[quote=“ben, post:68, topic:5582”]
the additional security risk that comes with root access
[/quote]Do you mind to elaborate?
1 Like
Hello,
I honestly think the silent majority of Fairphone buyers, do care about the fair manufacturing off the phone. And that is why they payed more (even in advance) for an average smartphone.
But not being a computer freak or a software savvy they just want their Fairphone to function like a “normal” smartphone.
And this silent majority doesnt understand anything of these things - root access ?? - APK ?? - F-droid ?? - bootloader ??
Therefore I think that Ben’s proposal makes sense.
And it still gives those who want to “open” there Fairphone and install alternative OS or whatever the chance to do so.
4 Likes
To, as i repeated often above, having root access or no Play Store is not related much to the “fair” in Fairphone. That said, it is the same groups you mention i want to benefit from my proposal. People only caring for environmental and social issues bei providing a phone that works as they expect, People who wan’t to do more by providing a good base for programmers and developers to hack of the devices OS and provide alternative OSes and by providing easy means to root the phone.
It is not necessarily the that somebody cares for all those three points. I think these groups are overlapping, yes, but it is perfectly possible to care about fair trade and do not mind Google at all. Or caring about the environmental issues and seeing Google critical but STILL wanting the Google Play Store.
Please see Stefan’s answer above.
While there is nothing wrong in being idealistic.
Data privacy is an issue, yes, but i do not see it as pressing as the fairness and it is not necessarily related. There are tons of alternatives promising privacy and/or more open OSs, see Blackphone, CyanogenMod, Firefox OS etc. Point 3 of my original proposal would make it a lot easier or even possible, compared to the FP1, to port those to the Fairphone.
You would argue what @keesj and @anon12454812 are doing is not software-development? I think it is clear i meant original development and maintenance as wall. MediaTek is out for the FP2 btw.
I did so several times above. And i think if we wan’t to dicuss pro and cons of root, we should do so in another thread.
[quote=“ben, post:74, topic:5582”]
You would argue what @keesj and @rick are doing is not software-development?
[/quote]Kees has indeed a position as software developer. But I think his impact on FP OS is somewhat limited compared to Google, MediaTek and Kwamecorp.
[quote=“ben, post:74, topic:5582”]
if we wan’t to dicuss pro and cons of root, we should do so in another thread.
[/quote]I disagree. This topic is specifically about dropping root.
And the ability to use XPrivacy, AFWall, etc. is a gain on security, not a loss. At least for me. Made possible by root.
Well, i would say it is Kwamecorp and Fairphone developing what we are talking about here? What has Google and MediaTek to do with the Fairphone Launcher or pre-root or preinstalled Google Apps or the Fairphone Updater?
Ok, we discussed about this before. The main risk with root is elevated system access for apps doing harm. How are you supposed to know which apps to give root and which not? We all know that repeated requests for ‘admin access’ (see windows xp/7) leads to people simple agreeing and clicked away the dialog, for example. If you manage to fool a user it is save to give root access to your malicous app, who have access to the full system, you can brick the device or even worse hide malicous software very deep into the system.
Additionally, i have never questioned root can be very useful and privacy and maybe even security plus, if used correctly. I would therefore prefer it if users wanting root would install it themselves. This would make it easier to teach them what “root” means, why it can be great, but why to be careful as well.
2 Likes
If we’re so worried about agree-to-all users, why don’t we just pre-set the superuser access to ‘disabled’ ? (Settings -> System -> Superuser -> Settings -> Superuser Access -> Disabled) It should be hidden enough for those users.
3 Likes
I would not deny everyone the ability of making responsible decisions. This is a greater discussion: Do we / does Fairphone have the right to say what’s best for the(ir) users? Is it a) better to put users into a golden cage or is it b) better to educate them about the risks of root (and possible misuse) and believe in the ability of human beings to make reasonable decisions?
Edit: I didn’t see @HackAR’s post earlier:
Sounds like a good compromise! 
2 Likes
Does this allow apps currently not running on rooted devices to run?
If have the impression some of you do deliberately misunderstand me. I have, very often, repeated that this would only be a change of defaults i do not want to prevent anybody from installing root and i do not see any need to do so. I just think it would be better if the phone was not pre-rooted. We can hardly speak of a golden cage if every user is able to open it with 3 simple steps: (1) a reboot to recovery, (2) install from zip and (3) reboot?
On one side, you are asking me not to underestimate general users, on the other, this is really too much to ask? I do not need root currently a lot of others neither and for some, i prevents them from running important apps. I think users wanting to tinker with there system can be asked to perform these 3 steps above. Even if it is only for the sake the other have to be little bit less careful when using their devices and some users being able to use business or banking apps.
I understand these 3 steps above as a valuable small peek into the internals of android and something nobody wanting to use root should be afraid of. It was already stated that the Fairphone will probably come unlocked, so this would not need to affect the warranty.
I don’t have any of those, so I can’t tell. But I’m sure the devs could analyze one. Maybe a simple rename or move of su executable (upon deactivation of root access) will do. This way it will be reversible.
[quote=“ben, post:79, topic:5582”]
I just think it would be better if the phone was not pre-rooted. We can hardly speak of a golden cage if every user is able to open it with 3 simple steps: (1) a reboot to recovery, (2) install from zip and (3) reboot?
[/quote]1. I still think that is not needed at all. 2. It will be unacceptable for me if FP will support the version with superuser access in any way less than the one without.
[quote=“ben, post:79, topic:5582”]
I do not need root
[/quote]Let me say this in plain text: Everyone do need privacy and security. Currently, the best way to enforce it is by having a superuser access and XPrivacy with a good firewall like AFWall. There are always people who just don’t care if others can see their d!ck. But that’s not the standard FP should promote.
1 Like