"more sustainable"
How is forcing users to either wear out their USB port faster or use bluetooth headphone with finite battery lifespans more sustainable then keeping the audio port that has been standardized as long as most of us have been alive?
That's an ... interesting reading? I don't see any evidence of them claiming that the removal of the 3.5mm jack compared to previous models is more sustainable. I see them claiming that their phones overall are more sustainable than smartphones in general. Which is true. That doesn't negate the removal of the 3.5mm jack being bad, but neither does that removal in any way negate the overall benefits of their approach.
Also found it strange how a company went so far as to have a user replaceable battery then never offered or partnered with any company to offer an extended model. I have fond memories of my note 4's 10,000 zerolemon battery, and would love to see something like that. Plus, larger batteries wear out slower, as they need fewer recharge cycles due to longer usable abttery life.
My guess: a combination of price, sales volumes, and the difficulty of finding a partner willing to match their commitment to conflict-free and ethically sourced raw materials. Which would essentially force them into making such a battery themselves, which is bound to be a very low margin endeavor, and an expensive one to buyers. Also, the phone is already above 200g - it would likely exceed 300g with such a battery. There's also the issue of making a rear shell fitting this battery that feels decent in the hand and doesn't ruin the ergonomics of the device. Not trivial with what is already a large phone.
I feel like all of you guys complaining about the high prices or "weak" specs are completely missing the point. First, this is quite a niche product. It's niche because of:
a) The idea: Most people don't give a flying f@#$ about the environment, the working conditions of the people involved in manufacturing stuff or that their phone is a glued together glass slab that's fiddly to repair. They just want max specs for bottom dollar and when said slab goes rock climbing and needs a display replacement, they rather just buy a new phone, because, you know, f@#$ logic and the environment. This phone doesn't appeal to them, it might not appeal to you, but the eco-bio-organic-vegan-hipster crowd will probably love it.
and
b) The execution: This is a byproduct of the previous reason. Limited appeal -> niche product -> low prouction volume. Even if the target audience were larger, the company would probably still need to manfacture and sell millions of phones before the costs per unit are becoming low enough for the retail prices to be competitive without the company paying out of their procket for every phone produced.
Also, modularity and limited engineering funding (compared to large companies) impose
some limitations and challenges on design, manufacturing and performance, you have to keep that in mind.
The two main things this has going for it are the ethically sourced materials and the repair-friendly design. The first one might be questionable and difficult to prove directly, the second one is undeniable.
The omission of a 3.5 mm port is a major dick move in my book as well. I can't justify that.
@MikeMurphy - If I remember correctly the bootloader on previous models could be unlocked, so you could use their OS builds or whatever else you like best. I see no reason why this should be different.
@TheLostSwede - A couple of minor typos: the last paragraph should read: "128 GB storage
SKU will set you back €579" and "both
SKUs come with a five year warranty".
Finally at least one person here who seems to grasp the concept of what Fairphone are trying to do. Seeing the commenters here all starting from the basis that price/value or absolute performance (which ties into value) are the only possible way to judge a phone is just ... kind of baffling? Like, do people have that little perspective on the world? Fairphone has never tried to compete on price or value. That would explicitly contradict their mission - to shift value further down the production chain, ensuring better pay and working conditions in the factories and suppliers they hire, and working towards a goal of ethically and sustainably sourced materials throughout the product. Plus, they're small and independent from giant electronics companies. None of this lends itself towards being cost competitive. And frankly, that's fine. Are they there, are they perfect? Of course not.
They themselves detail that in their yearly reports. But they do work - including in-person surprise audits across the supply chain - to ensure that the conditions of their contracts are upheld, and they eschew the multi-linked supply chains that modern commerce use to rid themselves of responsibility for the sourcing of their materials. For everyone else, the standard line is "We don't know where [material X] comes from, we buy it from a trusted supplier, it's their responsibility."
Fairphone literally starts organizations to make possible the ethical sourcing of raw materials. And they pay attention to the entire lifecycle of the product, rather than the standard "you bought it, it's out of our hands" approach, working for repairability and longevity of the devices as well as recyclability when they are no longer serviceable. Again, I'm not saying they are perfect in any way. But at least they're genuinely trying, in a way and at a scale no other phone (or consumer electronics) maker is.
If value is the most important thing to you, that is of course an entirely valid prioritization. We don't all have the luxury of plentiful spending money. But using that perspective to criticize essentially the only actor in the smartphone space actually doing effective and impactful work for the fundamental improvement of the industry? That's, at best, a bad-faith argument.
It's also pretty striking how criticisms like these are universally leveled against companies and products genuinely trying to do good (and no, I'm not talking about giant corporations greenwashing themselves here, like that MS """ocean plastic""" mouse last week). Like, when is the last time someone criticized Porsche for delivering poor value with their cars, despite them essentially being reskinned VW frames with more powerful engines and some posh design? Oh, no, they're
premium,
aspirational, and as such can't be criticized for being poor value, as they deliver
something more. Which is true! But so does Fairphone. What "more" it delivers is of an entirely different kind, but claiming one type of added value is valid and one isn't? That gets us into some pretty shaky territory overall, and gets us into value judgements around what is worth paying a premium for or not. If showing off your wealth and burning gas like an idiot with a luxury sports car is worth a premium for you, then that's your right, but it also makes you part of the problem globally. And it certainly makes you a very different person than who Fairphone is aiming at (though no doubt they'd love to convert as many of the overconsuming rich to more sensible patterns of consumption as they can - but I don't think that's a priority for them). And on that level, at least have the intellectual honesty to be forthright about the basis for criticizing them. (And no, this isn't directed at anyone in particular - it's more me begging you to actually consider your priorities and valuations and where they stem from. We all benefit from a critical perspective on our own preferences and habits.)
