I can’t believe some of the points Linus made against the Fairphone, especially given he’s onboard with the same compromises for the Framework laptop. 🤭
I can’t believe some of the points Linus made against the Fairphone, especially given he’s onboard with the same compromises for the Framework laptop. 🤭
I have no special love for Linus Tech Tips, but a lot of the defences used by Fairphone are quite weak in my opinion.
“It’s better than the Fairphone 4” doesn’t really matter when I’m comparing the Fairphone to a Pixel phone.
“Who needs to watch 10 hours of Youtube”? Very few people do, but half the battery life in video decode means charging your phone twice as often even if you don’t watch Youtube all day. The unfortunate SIM card/SD card slot placement is also just that, unfortunate; there are good reasons for them to be placed there, but other phones have sliders or slots that will let you live swap either card without even taking the back off, and I think the way Fairphone approached it is suboptimal. It not being designed for easy swapping doesn’t mean that people who do want easily swappable cards are wrong for having their preferences, especially when so many thinner, faster, cheaper phones can do the same just fine.
The inefficient SoC that gets Fairphone 8 years of support is nice, especially for a company that small, but with Google and Samsung also offering 7 to 8 years of support on their phones, it becomes much less impressive. Five years ago, this would’ve been a gamechanger, but right now, they’re doing marginally better than their competition at the cost of a huge dip in performance. What’s worse, is that regardless of it being their fault or not, Fairphone has a relatively spotty history when it comes to patching.
The software gripes Linus seems to take issue with seem to be the LineageOS/Android defaults, or the Google parts (i.e. the stupid Google launcher that Google forces its partners to use, unless you want to ship your own). Still, promises of “we will fix the software in an update” are meaningless to a consumer buying a phone now. I’ve read plenty of “we will patch this” comments from manufacturers over the years, and without a definitive timescale, those promises are worthless.
For a customer who wants the best phone for their money, the Fairphone is objectively worse. It’s marketed at the niche segment of people who are willing to spend extra for a mid-tier phone to get more environmentally and socially conscious hardware. And you know what? I don’t disagree with Linus’ suggestion at the end: even the fairest phone is environmentally costlier than rescuing an old second hand phone.
Most people will be incredibly unhappy with a Fairphone 5 if the alternative would’ve been a Pixel 8. I think it’s fair for LTT to review the phone from a general consumer point of view.
Of course, LTT is also hypocritical as balls, as very similar problems and the very same insane price-to-quality difference is also present for Framework laptops. Expensive hardware, meh software, many suboptimal design choices.
also the fairphone doesnt sell replacement parts for any longer than most regular manufacturers do.
at least the framework offers pretty good modularity.
Most of the power goes into the screen. The Pixel 8 has a ridiculously power efficient screen. I have one. It also costs $300 to replace. The Fairphone’s is $100.
Slots and sliders inevitably weaken the phone frame making it easier to break. They also cost more to machine.
Replacing a battery to rescue a Pixel will run you $100-200.
Many design choices make a lot of sense when looked through the repairability, durability and cost of repairability lenses.
That’s fair. If you intend to replace the screen multiple times, the Fairphone is a better choice. I don’t see why the replaceable screen would need to consume more power, though
$200 Huawei phones from 6 years ago had sliding slots behind the removable back panel. Other budget phones still have sliders. This could’ve been fixed in different ways. Perhaps Fairphone couldn’t figure out the slider without causing other problems, but being unable to live swap the SD card is still disappointing.
Add that to the $250 for a second hand Pixel 6 and you can buy at least two for the price of a Fairphone. Not only did you save money, you also saved the environment by reducing the e-waste society produces!
I agree, but that doesn’t mean the phone isn’t too expensive for its position in the lineup for the general public. I might value the ability to run custom ROMs and the ability to upgrade components down the line that I pay extra upfront, but the rest of my family sure won’t.
Objectivity worse in performance, sure. Some people consider more things than just being a fastest bang for the buck. Unethical mining, forced labour, e-waste, data mining, and lots of other things. If you care at all, that is.
If you want to compare that to a product made by a billion dollar company, no one is stopping anyone. There is cost associated with doing things ethically. Small companies aren’t financed to eat those costs to gain the market. It speaks more about principles than anything else.
is it? The person who sold the phone is most definitely going to buy a new phone and if they sold the phone released last year they will most likely do so every year. The reason there’s a second hand market with a year old phones is because people obsessively buy new phones. How exactly is that environmentally friendly than starting to use a phone made by a company with higher ethics? Surely the later stacks higher in being environmentally and morally friendly?
Duchebag is spouting capitalists “trickle down” economics. Rather than fix the cause, find the flex tape to hide it. Rich people buy new phones, less rich buy phones from the rich, and so on. No one needs to look past the marketing into ethics in how they were made and companies keep profiting in billions by exploitation of the poor. So so environmentally friendly.
That’s the stupidest argument against 2nd hand market I’ve ever heard. It read as you’re too proud and too much nose on your imagined status to buy “used shit”
The difference is you can produce only the best phones. There aren’t throw away/cheap phones. The only difference is then how old the phone is.
It’s the difference between buying an old Lexus and a new base model Kia. They both might cost the same, and yeah the Lexus driver almost definitely got a new car, but the Lexus is probably going to outlive the Kia.
People are going to buy new phones regardless. You not buying used phones is not going to change that.
Buying used or refurbished keeps the devices they‘d throw away (or keep in a drawer for 10 years, then throw away), if they couldn’t sell them, from landfills.
Also, I know plenty of people who are well off that buy second hand phones and even more people who couldn’t even afford a Fairphone (which starts at almost 500€ for a 4 and 650€ for a 5) that buy a brand new 200-300€ phone every two years.
And those low end phones are the least environmentally friendly because they‘re definitely unethically made they most likely break more quickly than higher end options, they usually don’t get updates for very long, if at all, and there’s no noteworthy second hand market for them because people just throw them away (or into a drawer) if the phone stops working or when they feel like getting a new one, because who buys a 2 year old low end phone second hand?
Buying used instead is a great option. You get a higher end device for cheaper without anything new having to be made for you. It‘ll still last you years and you’ll have a better experience than with a cheap new phone.
Yes, it would be better if all phones were ethically produced, easy to repair and would last a long time. Especially if there are ethically phones in the sub 300€ market. Won’t be easy to achieve, if at all, and wouldn’t stop blind consumerism but it would make for an even better second hand market. Because, you know what’s better than a fairphone? A second hand fairphone.
The difference is striking, though. It’s half as fast at the starting line. I can only imagine what’ll happen to it once it runs Android 23 in eight years.
That’s fair, but then buying a second hand iPhone should solve all of those issues for you. No additional materials beind mined, no days collection, and the only forced labour you’ll be adding to the market is you forcing open the back to replace the battery.
It does, but principles don’t translate to tangible benefits for the products.
It is, unless Fairphone manages to make an impact. To make an impact, they’ll need to convince “normal” people to buy the phone. And to do that, they need to put a phone out in the market place at a competitive price.
It’s good that there’s an ethical new phone out there, but the simple truth is that the general consumer will ignore this thing if it costs twice as much as a phone with similar specs.
I’m not sure how companies benefit from a second hand market, though. Second hand flagship phones compete directly with their budget and mid-range models. If they legally could, they’d block you from being able to sell your phone.
And yes, reusing an old phone is more environmentally friendly than buying a new one even if the new one is sustainably built. If you care about the environment, you should be happy with the second hand market, and encourage others to buy second hand phones. “Reduce, reuse, recycle” is said in that particular order for a very good reason.
Perhaps the truth is that the review was unfair, because there is no competition to put the Fairphone against. It’s a product built for a specific niche that has no other devices to choose from. But then again, if it only competes in that particular niche, why send one for review to a general tech reviewer at all? There are other reviewers that focus on sustainable technology that would be a lot more positive about this thing, nicely targeting the people who would consider buying such a device.
You’re making a lot of good points here, but I feel like this last bit goes against how most people would evaluate purchasing such a phone after the fact.
People don’t walk around comparing what they have to what they don’t have based on specifications alone (that’s just successful marketing). Their actual experiences are what matters. The FP is a good enough phone that most people will experience no issues having one. Most people simply don’t need the best of the best, and whether it’s a FP or a Pixel doing what they need their phones to do is of very little consequence to them.
Don’t get me wrong. If you’re price oriented, and you want to get the most bang for the buck, there’s better options. But I would argue that this doesn’t matter all that much for most people’s satisfaction, which is probably much more by affected long support and repairability (even if it’s just that you can swap the battery).
In that case, wouldn’t the experience be “this is as slow as my old phone”, “the bezels are rather large”, “this thing is super heavy”, “why do I need to charge my phone already”, and “why is it so thick”?
Price isn’t everything, but the 800 dollar segment comes with certain expectations. The Fairphone is a decidedly mid-range phone with a high-end price tag. There are real benefits to that price (the long support and the ethical superiority, for example), but I don’t think consumers really care about that stuff enough not to be disappointed.
Maybe it’s because I don’t have the kind of disposable income to overlook these issues, but I don’t think I would be very satisfied with the Fairphone myself. My current phone is closing in on 4½ years of usage, but it cost just over half the price of a new Fairphone at launch. I don’t think the SoC will be able to keep up with another four years of updates, but the new Fairphone SoC doesn’t seem much faster. I don’t think I’d spend 810 dollars on a phone with 8 years of support when I could just as easily spend 450 dollars twice for a phone that I’ll use 4½ years, and get better performance out of it as well.
Most average phone users don’t give a shit about bezels, weight and stuff, they just buy whatever is put in front of them. If Apple came out with a new iPhone that was heavier, thicker bezelled, slower, people would still buy it because the truth is, they don’t compare anything or look into it besides “this is the latest”.
Speed is such a none issue, all mid-range phones are plenty fast enough for the very large majority of people. Buying flagship phones with the fastest SoCs is pointless to them, they will never get value from it - they just buy them because they are the latest “best shit you need” and they cost a lot more than a Fairphone.
Now the value of replacing a battery on the fly (whether broken or just for more juice) would actually be a lot higher, people used to do that in the past. The ability to repair the phone yourself wouldn’t really matter to most, as they usually just take their phones to a repair shop anyway, but the cost of the repair would be lower.
The Fairphone has a great mission, one that all phones should be going after. They are expensive for what you are getting in terms of specifications, yes, but the company isn’t large enough to make them any cheaper without sacrificing the point of them in the first place. It’s fine to not want one, but comparing them to flagship phones, the same way you would compare an S24 to an iPhone 15, is actually unfair. Not to say you can’t critise it, I think the software is the weak point and some issues were clearly highlighted, not unfixable though.
If price wasn’t a factor and you just handed them to average people to use, then they would most likely be satisfied and would find value in it.
I think Framework and Fairphone are solving similar but different problems.
Fairphone is “keep this phone as configured working.”
Framework is more “I have this laptop but it can become this other newer laptop without me needing to buy all the parts again AND I can buy replacement parts.”
It’s really not even remotely the same calculus in my book.
LTT have high praise to the ability to replace the individual components in the Framework, like the trackpad and the screen.
I guess laptops are seen in a different light compared to phones, but I don’t think they should be. Not anymore.
Yes, but replacing the track pad is ALSO in the context of “you can have the latest and greatest laptop CPU.”
You just can’t do that with the Fairphone.
A Framework could hypothetically last forever. A Fairphone still has an 8 year lifespan.
Thanks for the nuanced response. Obviously both FP and LTT are defending their own interests and neither are inherently better.
I think their point about framework laptops is actually a stupid one. The fairphone is not a modular device (although they always seem to be trying to claim that), which the framework laptops are. The fact you have to remove the battery to do anything kind of proves that it’s not modular, we’ve seen modular phones so we know what they look like and they don’t look like this.
So it just seems a weird comparison to have made. The fairphone is easier to repair than your average smartphone, but it’s still a lot less repairable than phones from the early 2000s. It’s not a simple repair unless you’re talking about a battery replacement. It doesn’t have swappable buttons, It doesn’t have swappable chassis. Basically it’s a cheap Android phone that costs more money than it is really worth with the justification of environmentalism. I would take a truly modular and easy to repair phone over this any day of the week if one existed, and since one doesn’t yeah I think i’ll go for a Pixel.
The Framework is about more than just the USB bays. They’re also designed to have non-hotswappable repairs for things like the touchpad, the screen, the keyboard, and all kinds of other components that are impossible to replace on other laptops. And there are actually some upgrades you can do to the Fairphone 4, though I don’t think I would bother with the ones they offer if I had one.
The original framework didn’t have motherboard upgrades, those came later. It was lauded for its openness and repairability, but the repairability doesn’t seem to be any better than the Fairphone’s. You can swap the battery, add storage, replace the (web)cam, swap the screen, all without complicated tools, but i think the only real difference is that the Fairphone doesn’t have a removable SSD and RAM package. You can’t upgrade a framework’s CPU without replacing the entire motherboard with it, for instance. Almost everything the Framework was lauded for on launch has been the default on Fairphones for years now, so I think the comparison is quite apt.
I don’t think I’ve used an early 2000s phone where you could replace the camera without a soldering iron, or get access to the screen without breaking the chassis plastic. The replaceable stuff always seemed like a marketing gimmick to me.
The Fairphone has one practical repairability advantage: they promise to keep parts in stock. I could happily get another year or two out of my current phone, but there are no more replacement screens or batteries to be found anywhere. The same was true back in the 2000s; phones with replaceable batteries, skins and back panels would show up, but two years later no shop would stock any of that stuff.
Unfortunately, the modular phones died, because the few phones that did offer modules completely failed. It’s just not viable to create a fully modular device in this form factor.
I’m not going to get into it because it’s really not relevant to the point, but it is absolutely not proven that modular phones are non-viable. The only two phones to ever tryid it basically never even were given a chance by their manufacturers before they were killed. They just realized that they would never make lots of money on it because you make more money by selling a new phone, then you ever will by just making modular components.
The original framework came with the claim that it WOULD have motherboard upgrades though (and then they delivered). It was only highly praised for what it was at the time because that’s what the product was (on top of being a product with pretty good specs) and you should never buy a product on the promise of something else.
I mean lots of people said that about laptops too and then Framework shook things up.
Chiming in on the SIM/SD: as far as I can remember, my phone didn’t let me hotswap neither SIM or SD, always required a restart to handle it properly.
What phone was this? I can add and remove SIM cards on the fly, and did so once or twice all the way since Android 9. Could be a firmware thing that’s preventing it from working for you, but even then SD cards should still just work; those have been swappable (excluding adoptable storage, of course) since at least Android 4.
All Samsungs - Note 4, Note 8 (had two), S20 FE (current). Always says the media was not safely removed (SD) and requires a restart, or outright refuses to recognize there is even a SIM card until I restart.
If you eject the SD card in the settings, it’ll happily take a new SD card. Just popping it out is how you get a confused OS, especially with the way Android was designed, but that’s why the eject button is there.
The SIM issue is pretty weird. I don’t know why Samsung phones don’t seem to cope with that.
7 years is only for Pixel and S24 phones. The vast majority of existing Samsung phones will only get 5 years of security updates.
https://www.howtogeek.com/797200/how-long-will-my-android-phone-be-supported-with-updates/
Most common middle- and upper-tier phones, as well as any Pixel and Fairphone (thanks to being more open) will get a custom ROM with updates 8+ years after the release, and you can buy a used 5-year-old phone quite cheaply.
Typing this on my 10-year-old Sony Xperia Z with Android 13. It cost me $0 (found in e-waste) including a data plan (owner forgot SIM inside). The camera has low sensitivity and dust in it and the battery is not too great, but everything else is decent. There is even 4G and NFC. I decided to not use the SIM as it could be criminal, and I have my prepaid one in s dumb phone, but I use it for entertainment - the phone fits in my hand and the design is quite timeless.
Most people aren’t comfortable with flashing unofficial ROMs onto garbage bin phones. I’m unironically glad that you have rescued a perfectly good phone but that’s just not a scalable solution IMO. Buying a used phone that you know has a lineage ROM is a more viable path but you’re still back to square one if the battery or port or screen give up on you.
Perhaps, but Linus compares the phone directly to the Pixel 8. Or you could get an iPhone. In both cases, you’ll end up paying less than fir a Fairphone.
Yes of course. The point of this phone is to trade cost/perf/etc for improved repairability and business ethics. Long software support is a prerequisite for repairability being useful.
This phone isn’t for people looking primarily for best value.
What, why?
Because as a consumer, I’m not considering buying a Fairphone 4. This stuff only matters if you’ve already determined you’re going to be buying any Fairphone, you just don’t know which one. Which may be the case for some people, but most people don’t exclusively buy Fairphones.
Modern phones on purpose dropped SD card support but yeah, slimmer phones still have those sliders. To be fair you need a tool for that, unlike their option.
We really have to keep that in mind. When they planned the FP5 they likely had no idea Google would do the same. They take what Qualcomm offers, unlike tech Giants Google and Samsung that can basically dictate update lifespans.
They are the ODM unlike GrapheneOS and comparing them to Google is really unfair. Google makes Android, so they know the code best. They patch very quickly, the updates work for their phones out of the box, less work for GrapheneOS.
Fairphone on the other hand has to maintain a unique device which is way more work, they get early access because of that though.
And their noncompliance with all the GrapheneOS security demands is the reason I dont use it.
Fairphone is Google certified and thus needs to ship unmodified Android including all the Google crap. There is a company called Murena that creates some hacky LineageOS-based OS and sells Fairphones with it preinstalled.
This /e/OS looks nice and has very nice integrations, but is fundamentally flawed and less secure than GrapheneOS for example (microG, depending on unmaintained apps, even slower updates,…)
Regular phones dont get 8 years of updates so they will be outdated and should not be used. This argument makes no sense.
I got a used Pixel 6a with 2 years left, so used but way less long updates, so I hope on getting a used Pixel 8 which means roughly 1,7 phones instead of one, should be equally sustainable.
That’s true (at least for the phones I’ve seen), but there are still other ways. Six or seven years ago, phones had little slide-in slots attached to the motherboard that were accessible by removing the back cover of the phone, for example. There are tool-less ways this could’ve been implemented.
This is true, which is why they bought the worse IoT SoC instead of a nornal mobile chip, but they do get access to patches and source code way ahead of volunteer projects like LineageOS and Graphene and still tend to lag behind in terms of releases. I can forgive them for major Android releases, but not for the security updates
I think most of their demands are quite reasonable, really. “Provide an update for the bug that allows any app to become root/any nearby Bluetooth device to execute code as root within a month” doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me, and neither does “actually patch all the vulnerabilities known up till know”. The TEE stuff is also something a lot secure software relies on.
I guess it’s the Fairphone, not the Securephone. And then again, nobody cares about security anyway. It just adds context to the promised eight years of software support: you get support, but do you get all of the support? Do you gain anything above flashing LineageOS to a different device?
Samsung is Google certified and they don’t. They opted to use Google’s skin, with Google’s launcher and a bunch of Google extras rather than develop their own. They don’t need to do that, they just aren’t allowed to modify Google’s launcher if they choose to use Google’s launcher.
I like the idea behind /e/ but their software updates have been lacking.
Shouldn’t they? Most people I know don’t give a shit about security updates. Apps still work, browsers still get updated. Someone like me would flash a custom ROM, others would just keep using their Android 9 phone until it no longer works some day. And to be honest, as long as you update your browser, there’s not really that big a risk of getting hacked on Android. That, and the ability to install 'your WhatsApp is outdated click here to install WhatsApp 2024.apk".
There are people thst shouldn’t use old phones (human rights activists, journalists, people in important positions within big companies) but they probably shouldn’t be using Android in the first place, especially not from a company that doesn’t have the capacity to focus on security like Google and Apple can.