Unfortunately, I agree. I bought the Fairphone 3+ expecting they would keep the form factor to allow for upgrades in the modules, but with the FP4 they went from a company that had a clear market position to plain greenwashing.
I’ll keep hoping they reverse course now that they changed the CEO or that frame.work decide to enter the space as well.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Social Governance. I teach English as a business school, sorry, I should have mentioned.
I choose some companies that sell similar products and have the students study and compare. This year I chose lots of companies that look great, but are also a bit off.
For example, I chose Fairphone, Murena and Teracube. They liked FP the best, but found it misleading and a little expensive. The two others were just not great hardware offers.
Asus Zenfone, Samsung Xcover 6 Pro, Sony Xperia all have them and higher waterproof ratings. The Samsung even has a replaceable battery. And will likely get more updates over its lifespan knowing Fairphone’s track record.
The whole point is that it’s not like other phones. The whole point is that it’s supposed to be sustainable.
Removing the capability of using wired headphones that have no batteries and have an indefinite life goes against everything the company claims to stand for.
Immediately turning around and introducing Bluetooth options is what every other manufacturer has done to drive profits.
is the only smartphone available that uses fairtrade gold
has a 100% recycled plastic back cover
uses ASI certified fair aluminium
is by far the most repairable smartphone currently on the market
The mainstream electronics supply chain is tainted with literal blood and slavery. The importance of what this company tries to prove and achieve cannot be understated.
The fact that they remove the headphone jack might be annoying and feel like counter to their main goal. As an electronics engineer I can say that removing this jack makes the full phone circuit board more simple, decreases the space used and allows them to make the phone lighter or put a better battery in. As most people are now used to not having this port in phones anymore, this seems like an easy concession to make to keep the design load as low as possible. Remember that they are trying to compete with companies that are way bigger and have way more design resources.
I am all for criticizing companies so that they can improve, but these accusations of greenwashing and them completely disregarding their goal are simply untrue. The difference between them and literally any other smartphone manufacturer in terms of supply chain fairness, repairability and warranty is night and day.
Please don’t make us lose this great attempt at improving the smartphone industry by making perfect the enemy of already pretty fucking good.
I hadn’t heard of this, and it makes me quite angry. Sooo many phones have Qualcomm chips in them, including every phone I’ve ever owned.
The amount of data they’re collecting is unreasonable for what’s actually required for A-GPS (the only actual feature this enables). And it’s all completely invisible to users because they don’t even include the Privacy Policy with the phones.
If I want to stop Qualcomm sending out a bunch of my data unencrypted over the web, I’ve got very few options, all of which are: Buy a new Phone…
Edit: After more research on this, it seems this A-GPS request is still happening from the OS, which controls Wifi. /e/OS just didn’t reconfigure the Qualcomm driver like GrapheneOS. This isn’t a hardware or firmware backdoor or something like I thought initially. The article seems like an ad for NitroKey / NitroPhone, which is just a modified Pixel with GrapheneOS on it. I might look at GrapheneOS for my Samsung phone.
Only apps that don’t work are the ones from these e-scooter rentals like Felyx (they require Google Play Services for some reason). But in my town its better to cycle anyway ;)
I have eOS installed on my old Moto G7 Plus. It’s possibly the most private android distro out there, more so than LineageOS for example. Even if someone doesn’t have an old device to install it on, they can buy such a phone for $50, second hand.
It’s sold as a 5G phone but crashes intermittently if you actually enable 5G. I bought a 5G phone and I’m still on 4G. I wish I could say that’s the most of the problems, I could live with that.
The software support, in my opinion, is falsely advertised. You do get 5 years of kernel and Android updates but the system-on-chip updates, which aren’t made by Fairphone, end October of this year. That’s a whole important part of the updates which cease only 2 years into support.
Then, there’s the real kicker; the hardware root of trust has the (publicly available) AOSP test keys installed. This means anyone can sign and flash a verified ROM if they have access to the unlocked phone. That’s perhaps not too important for most people, but it screams incompetence and it means you cannot trust a second hand device.
When the SoC support is up, I’m moving to a Pixel. I’m done rolling the dice on Android phone manufacturers and I want a well implemented device.
It’s not really about better, it’s more knowing what I’m getting. It’s not their fault that Qualcomm’s support is only 3 years (at the time) or that it takes them 10 months to develop support for the chosen SoC which eats into part of that 3 years. Still, I got the phone thinking I would have a reasonably secure device for 4-5 years which wasn’t entirely accurate.
I love the idea and, if you’re willing to sacrifice some security for sustainability, that’s great. I just want people to know what they’re getting into because I didn’t.
the hardware root of trust has the (publicly available) AOSP test keys installed
Has anyone independently verified that this is the case for the FP4? It’s well known that the FP3 accepts testsigned ROMs, but all discussions regarding the FP4’s trusted keys points back to the same FP3-specific thread on Fairphone’s forum.
Personally I’m happy that I can sign and run my own ROM on my FP3 when the device’s OS reaches the end of the runway. The privacy concerns are valid, but personally I’d just reflash the onboard storage using FP’s tools if I was concerned about OS tampering
Hot take:
The Fairphone isn’t privacy-focused, it’s just a highly repairable device for what it is. I think it’s difficult to have both a privacy-focused & repairable platform in the form factor of a mobile phone right now - no manufacturer cares to make such a device, and if they did would you trust it? So many mobile hardware components are closed source and proprietary, so if they’ve got a vulnerability, the device is compromised anyway.
Pixels and iPhones are really the only exception to this that I’m aware of, but those aren’t really comparable to the Fairphone for repairability, with serialised components and difficult battery replacement being high up on the list.
It is definitely possible to have a well-implemented device from a privacy perspective, but I think it would be difficult to make a justifiable business case for one. The current Pixel+GOS model is the closest we’ll get for privacy IMO.
The Fairphone isn’t privacy-focused, it’s just a highly repairable device for what it is.
The Fairphone is just hardware. Privacy is mostly about software.
I think it’s difficult to have both a privacy-focused & repairable platform in the form factor of a mobile phone right now - no manufacturer cares to make such a device
The Fairphone is just hardware. Privacy is mostly about software
I was thinking more from the perspective of how much the closed-source proprietary hardware in the Fairphone can be trusted to guarantee your privacy. I had devices like the Pinephone and Librem phone in mind, which provide physical switches for the camera, microphone, GPS and mobile modem.
Another user gave the example I would have used here, where the GPS subsystem in Qualcomm devices freely uses the mobile modem mostly outside of the OS’s control to download satellite almanac updates whenever it needs to, and submitting identifiers for your device over unencrypted HTTP
FFS did no one actually read the OP?
Yep. Personally I see e/OS on the Fairphone as a solid combo for allowing someone to slowly degoogle and take back control without giving up too many creature comforts. It 100% fulfils the software aspect of privacy IMO for the intended user.
It’s primarily the hardware trust aspect that I was thinking about when I wrote my earlier response. Personally, I’m just interested in privacy from the perspective of controlling my data and knowing what’s done with it
Has anyone independently verified that this is the case for the FP4? It’s well known that the FP3 accepts testsigned ROMs, but all discussions regarding the FP4’s trusted keys points back to the same FP3-specific thread on Fairphone’s forum.
I don’t know, it does make flashing custom ROMs easier but I would rather have to install my own signing keys or signing keys for the ROM as this way renders a part of the device security completely useless. I’d at least like to have known when I bought it.
I’m not paranoid which is why I’m still using the device but these three points were each huge disappointments which make me not want to buy another Fairphone.
Yep. Pixel, GrapheneOS, be harsh and restrictive with permissions, and intuitive with the apps you install. Simplify your digital life - it’s much easier and less of a hindrance than you’d think.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Everything I believed about this company is called into question since they removed the headphone jack.
Unfortunately, I agree. I bought the Fairphone 3+ expecting they would keep the form factor to allow for upgrades in the modules, but with the FP4 they went from a company that had a clear market position to plain greenwashing.
I’ll keep hoping they reverse course now that they changed the CEO or that frame.work decide to enter the space as well.
Yup. I use them as an example/case study in my classes about CSR/ESG.
Could you elaborate about this? Seems interesting, but I don’t even know what those abreviatons mean :)
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Social Governance. I teach English as a business school, sorry, I should have mentioned.
I choose some companies that sell similar products and have the students study and compare. This year I chose lots of companies that look great, but are also a bit off.
For example, I chose Fairphone, Murena and Teracube. They liked FP the best, but found it misleading and a little expensive. The two others were just not great hardware offers.
I would love if framework made a phone, they seem to be much more consistent with their mission. Makes me wish I needed a laptop.
I’m glad that I needed one recently and that it coincided with the release of their 13th gen Intel frameworks.
It’s been great so far.
Framework is making phones?
No, I said that I wish they did.
It does so much good and all you can do is whine about the headphone jack that no other phone has either?
Asus Zenfone, Samsung Xcover 6 Pro, Sony Xperia all have them and higher waterproof ratings. The Samsung even has a replaceable battery. And will likely get more updates over its lifespan knowing Fairphone’s track record.
Don’t be sanctimonious about your choice in cell phone, it’s weird. Also, I’m typing this from a phone that has a headphone jack and a microSD slot
The whole point is that it’s not like other phones. The whole point is that it’s supposed to be sustainable.
Removing the capability of using wired headphones that have no batteries and have an indefinite life goes against everything the company claims to stand for.
Immediately turning around and introducing Bluetooth options is what every other manufacturer has done to drive profits.
@snowbell
Check out this video https://invidious.tiekoetter.com/watch?v=EAogtqyN22M for some more context.
Already saw this and I’m not buying it
Afaik the focus is repairability and sustainability, not privacy.
Just to be clear, this phone:
The mainstream electronics supply chain is tainted with literal blood and slavery. The importance of what this company tries to prove and achieve cannot be understated.
The fact that they remove the headphone jack might be annoying and feel like counter to their main goal. As an electronics engineer I can say that removing this jack makes the full phone circuit board more simple, decreases the space used and allows them to make the phone lighter or put a better battery in. As most people are now used to not having this port in phones anymore, this seems like an easy concession to make to keep the design load as low as possible. Remember that they are trying to compete with companies that are way bigger and have way more design resources.
I am all for criticizing companies so that they can improve, but these accusations of greenwashing and them completely disregarding their goal are simply untrue. The difference between them and literally any other smartphone manufacturer in terms of supply chain fairness, repairability and warranty is night and day.
Please don’t make us lose this great attempt at improving the smartphone industry by making perfect the enemy of already pretty fucking good.
Privacy-focused? GSMArena says this thing has a Qualcomm chip and Qualcomm was just caught phoning home without user consent with unencrypted personal data (even if you use a privacy OS); what does the phone do to mitigate this?
I hadn’t heard of this, and it makes me quite angry. Sooo many phones have Qualcomm chips in them, including every phone I’ve ever owned.
The amount of data they’re collecting is unreasonable for what’s actually required for A-GPS (the only actual feature this enables). And it’s all completely invisible to users because they don’t even include the Privacy Policy with the phones.
If I want to stop Qualcomm sending out a bunch of my data unencrypted over the web, I’ve got very few options,
all of which are: Buy a new Phone…Edit: After more research on this, it seems this A-GPS request is still happening from the OS, which controls Wifi. /e/OS just didn’t reconfigure the Qualcomm driver like GrapheneOS. This isn’t a hardware or firmware backdoor or something like I thought initially. The article seems like an ad for NitroKey / NitroPhone, which is just a modified Pixel with GrapheneOS on it. I might look at GrapheneOS for my Samsung phone.
Lol, no headphone or SD card slot. Hard no.
It does support microSD (https://www.gsmarena.com/fairphone_4-11136.php).
Hmm, article says it doesn’t. Wierd
Of anyone wants to try the “App Lounge” it is available here: https://doc.e.foundation/support-topics/app_lounge#download-app-lounge-apks
And if you would like to take /e/OS for a test drive, perhaps you have a compatible device. Check the list here: https://doc.e.foundation/devices
I don’t use that OS, but I tried it before I the interface is very nice. If I could, I would use it on my device just for the UX/UI.
But, as mentioned in many threads, check out all the FP4 reviews before you consider buying.
I use /e/OS. Great experience.
Only apps that don’t work are the ones from these e-scooter rentals like Felyx (they require Google Play Services for some reason). But in my town its better to cycle anyway ;)
The Play Services might just be for push notifications or support across older hardware. Or it is just for location services.
I have eOS installed on my old Moto G7 Plus. It’s possibly the most private android distro out there, more so than LineageOS for example. Even if someone doesn’t have an old device to install it on, they can buy such a phone for $50, second hand.
I am interested in why you consider e/OS/ more private than LineageOS?
I really like my fairphone 4 and highly recommend it :)
As the owner of a Fairphone 4, don’t get one.
It’s sold as a 5G phone but crashes intermittently if you actually enable 5G. I bought a 5G phone and I’m still on 4G. I wish I could say that’s the most of the problems, I could live with that.
The software support, in my opinion, is falsely advertised. You do get 5 years of kernel and Android updates but the system-on-chip updates, which aren’t made by Fairphone, end October of this year. That’s a whole important part of the updates which cease only 2 years into support.
Then, there’s the real kicker; the hardware root of trust has the (publicly available) AOSP test keys installed. This means anyone can sign and flash a verified ROM if they have access to the unlocked phone. That’s perhaps not too important for most people, but it screams incompetence and it means you cannot trust a second hand device.
When the SoC support is up, I’m moving to a Pixel. I’m done rolling the dice on Android phone manufacturers and I want a well implemented device.
What baseband silicon does it mount ?
As a Pixel user I don’t know if I would class the Pixel as a better choice to anything, but I still haven’t moved to Graphene admittedly (my bad).
I think it’s a Qualcomm Snapdragon SM7225.
It’s not really about better, it’s more knowing what I’m getting. It’s not their fault that Qualcomm’s support is only 3 years (at the time) or that it takes them 10 months to develop support for the chosen SoC which eats into part of that 3 years. Still, I got the phone thinking I would have a reasonably secure device for 4-5 years which wasn’t entirely accurate.
I love the idea and, if you’re willing to sacrifice some security for sustainability, that’s great. I just want people to know what they’re getting into because I didn’t.
Has anyone independently verified that this is the case for the FP4? It’s well known that the FP3 accepts testsigned ROMs, but all discussions regarding the FP4’s trusted keys points back to the same FP3-specific thread on Fairphone’s forum.
Personally I’m happy that I can sign and run my own ROM on my FP3 when the device’s OS reaches the end of the runway. The privacy concerns are valid, but personally I’d just reflash the onboard storage using FP’s tools if I was concerned about OS tampering
Hot take:
The Fairphone isn’t privacy-focused, it’s just a highly repairable device for what it is. I think it’s difficult to have both a privacy-focused & repairable platform in the form factor of a mobile phone right now - no manufacturer cares to make such a device, and if they did would you trust it? So many mobile hardware components are closed source and proprietary, so if they’ve got a vulnerability, the device is compromised anyway.
Pixels and iPhones are really the only exception to this that I’m aware of, but those aren’t really comparable to the Fairphone for repairability, with serialised components and difficult battery replacement being high up on the list.
It is definitely possible to have a well-implemented device from a privacy perspective, but I think it would be difficult to make a justifiable business case for one. The current Pixel+GOS model is the closest we’ll get for privacy IMO.
The Fairphone is just hardware. Privacy is mostly about software.
FFS did no one actually read the OP?
I was thinking more from the perspective of how much the closed-source proprietary hardware in the Fairphone can be trusted to guarantee your privacy. I had devices like the Pinephone and Librem phone in mind, which provide physical switches for the camera, microphone, GPS and mobile modem.
Another user gave the example I would have used here, where the GPS subsystem in Qualcomm devices freely uses the mobile modem mostly outside of the OS’s control to download satellite almanac updates whenever it needs to, and submitting identifiers for your device over unencrypted HTTP
Yep. Personally I see e/OS on the Fairphone as a solid combo for allowing someone to slowly degoogle and take back control without giving up too many creature comforts. It 100% fulfils the software aspect of privacy IMO for the intended user.
It’s primarily the hardware trust aspect that I was thinking about when I wrote my earlier response. Personally, I’m just interested in privacy from the perspective of controlling my data and knowing what’s done with it
It seems so.
I don’t know, it does make flashing custom ROMs easier but I would rather have to install my own signing keys or signing keys for the ROM as this way renders a part of the device security completely useless. I’d at least like to have known when I bought it.
I’m not paranoid which is why I’m still using the device but these three points were each huge disappointments which make me not want to buy another Fairphone.
Yep. Pixel, GrapheneOS, be harsh and restrictive with permissions, and intuitive with the apps you install. Simplify your digital life - it’s much easier and less of a hindrance than you’d think.
Do banking apps work on Graphene?
If you have questions about GOS I’d recommend reviewing the documentation as it is very thorough:
https://grapheneos.org/usage#banking-apps
But the short answer is “mostly yes”
It will also depend on whether you choose to enable the entirely optional Google Play Services.
5G is a joke and I disable it on my Pixel anyway.
The phone in question does not come with Android installed, it comes with /e/OS