On 5/14/19 8:52 AM, Bernhard E. Reiter wrote:
When trying to get a product out of the doors, you face a large number of
small and larger decisions. First of all, the product has to "work" for the
expected usage. Fairphone 1 was good in this regard, but Fairphone 2 a bit
less so. Backing up and taking more time may have not been possible, without
risking to not have a product at all. Which would have been the worst result.
So to me your criticism is too harsh. After all they produced two phones that
were significant steps forward.
If we had more manufactures trying to go in the Fairphone direction, it would
foster much more Free Software usages on mobile devices. It is fine to point
out how they could do better, but I think we should even more applaude them
for the advances.
Actually, from a free software perspective I was disappointed with the
Fairphone 2. Fairphone 1 came with almost entirely free software, with
the OS based on AOSP and no Google apps in its default configuration.
Fairphone 2 came with proprietary Android and Google Apps and no way to
get rid of them without reflashing your phone (something I haven't
gotten around to yet, in part because of a perception of risk in doing so).
This also goes to show that the Fairphone project doesn't seem to focus
a lot on the free software issue, or even understand it very well. I
suspect that the Fairphone 1 had AOSP not because of a preference for
free software, but because they didn't have a deal with Google for
proprietary Android yet.
And that's not what I would expect, or at least want, from a fair phone.
Regarding sourcing, working conditions and repairability, I find the
project quite admirable in its goals.
Best
Carsten
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
