If Fairphone can support a 5-year-old handset, the other vendors could too. Right?
- Reference: 1592471714
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/06/18/fairphone_support_comment/
- Source link:
Except, it kind of is. When placed against the fragmented Android world, where vital software updates are issued slowly and inconsistently, Fairphone sticks out like a sore thumb. With a few exceptions (namely Nokia and Google), most vendors stop supporting devices after just two years on the market, with some choosing to call time sooner.
Even the Android One programme, which promises two OS upgrades and three years of patches, doesn't quite compare to Fairphone's performance.
Looking at the data, it becomes obvious that it doesn't have to be this way. Fairphone's [2]last annual report [PDF] shows revenues of €11.6m in 2017. That could easily be a rounding error for its rivals. It claims to have sold around 100,000 phones, and says it has a team of just 70. In short, it's a blip on the smartphone landscape.
And yet, when it comes to long-term support, Fairphone is vastly outperforming better-resourced rivals. How does that make sense? It doesn't, obviously. At least from a purely economic perspective.
Of course, it helps that Fairphone isn't exactly what you'd call a conventional phone vendor. For starters, it's a social enterprise with an ethos that explicitly rebukes planned obsolescence. Their entire raison d'être emphasises long-term use, rather than short-term sales figures.
And that motivation cuts both ways. If your priority is selling units, rather than reducing the amount of working tech sent to the landfill, you have an incentive to artificially reduce the lifespan of a product. That incentive is most keenly apparent when you consider that most budget phones have wafer-thin margins.
[3]According to Lei Jun , Xiaomi CEO and co-founder, the margin on its phones is around 8-9 per cent. Unsurprisingly, Xiaomi ranks poorly on [4]AOSMark's scoreboard of Android manufacturers by updates served (below).
[5]
Ultimately, it's in the best interest of phone manufacturers for people to buy phones at regular intervals, rather than hang on to them for as long as possible. That business model isn't really in the best interests of consumers or, for that matter, the environment.
To its credit, Google is trying to simplify the process of delivering Android updates for vendors. This process started years ago, with the Chocolate Factory gradually decoupling system components from the core operating system, allowing them to be updated via the Google Play Store, rather than an OTA upgrade.
That process should get easier still with Android 11, where [6]Google has mandated that new phones support A/B partitions , which are a core part of the firm's updates strategy. Reports from 2018 suggest it's also forcing certain manufacturers to support their flagship devices for a minimum of two years.
But it's not enough. As the developer of Android, Google is in a position of immense power and influence. There's no reason why it couldn't contractually compel any vendor that licenses Google Mobile Services (which includes the Google Play Store) to support their devices for a minimum period.
In the end, consumers have an obligation to vote with their wallet. By purchasing Android One devices, or phones from vendors like Fairphone, they can break this unholy cycle of planned obsolescence.
The environment – and their bank balances – will thank them. ®
* The FairPhone 2 is receiving an upgrade to Android 9 Pie. While this isn't the latest and greatest, it's still officially supported by Google. The phone first launched with Android 5 Lollipop.
Sponsored: [7]Free Hands-on Training: Kubernetes in Google Cloud
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2015/06/18/crowd_funded_phone_launches_mobe_mark_2/
[2] https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Fairphone_Report_DEF_WEB.pdf
[3] https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/11/28/xiaomi-ceo-says-that-gross-porift-margin-of-just-8-9-makes-mi-phones-so-competitive/
[4] https://www.aosmark.com/
[5] https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/06/17/aosmark.jpg
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/08/android_partitioned_update_commit/
[7] https://go.theregister.com/tl/1956/-9042/free-hands-on-training-kubernetes-in-google-cloud?td=wptl1956
To its credit, Google is trying to simplify the process of delivering Android updates for vendors.
That's the problem right there. Google launched Android with no thought for updates, originally claiming that it couldn't be done. They've dragged their heels over this for years, allowing billions of flawed devices to be distributed.
Some people will point the finger at the vendors but they didn't create an OS with no update mechanism, they just decided a free OS was too good a deal to miss.
I've been pleasantly surprised with my last 2 phones. My Huawei received updates 30 days behind Google's official release schedule, which, after my Galaxy 3S and htc Sensation (1 - 2 updates over 3 years). I upgraded to a Samsung S20+ this year and, so far, they have had the updates available within 3 days of Google announcing them.
Let's hope they really have turned a corner and will continue to provide them for the promised 3 years at the same rate.
Not as good as Fairphone, but a huge step forward to where they were a few years ago.
I have an original Jolla Sailfish phone from 2013
...Still receiving updates and still working.
JFTR: Fairphone 3
Buying a FP3 wasn't the worst idea I ever had. I can recommend the device to anyone who just needs a proper, working phone.
I expect that I will be downvoted...
You didn't mention that the latest software updates for iPhones (13.5.1) apply to phones back to the 6S - a 2015 phone. Looks as if Apple provide long term support too.
Re: I expect that I will be downvoted...
Unfortunately the fiaso with throttling older handsets with worn-out batteries went against them. I can understand the engineering reasons for that, but the execution came across as a cynical ploy for people to upgrade.
Re: I expect that I will be downvoted...
In fairness, the article is about Android phones.
Re: I expect that I will be downvoted...
Apple are against people repairing their own equipment, so its an immediate no from me.
Consumers aren’t being served by Android
The improvements are small increments, nothing revolutionary has really benefited general consumers for years. The vendors have happily set a market expectation for frequent replacement, most apps and games are stifled by in app purchase mechanics. Milked for hardware, and then milked for the software.
Sure, cameras have improved and processors are faster, but if consumer interests were genuinely being served we’d still have flagships with replaceable batteries and headphone jacks, and no forced Bixby buttons! If the most convincing reason for an upgrade is increasingly becoming ‘I’m no longer getting updates’ then something is terribly wrong with the entire market.
Re: Consumers aren’t being served by Android
Exactly, phones have increasingly plateaued, and if anything new phones have less features than those they're replacing.
My current Android phone is touching 5 years old (LG G4). It has an SD card slot, headphone jack, and removable battery. If I buy a new phone now, I'll almost certainly lose one or more of those features. The removable battery in particular has been key to the longevity of the phone as it meant I could easily swap the original, fading battery for a new one.
Other than that, the camera is surprisingly good for a phone of its age, performance is brisk and I'm struggling to see any features of a new phone that stand out. The only issue with the phone? Lack of updates. I get around this by not using it for Internet banking and being careful with the websites and apps I use on it.
Re: Consumers aren’t being served by Android
I still have an LG G3 with lots of spare batteries. Still works fine for me. The other thing that you don't get when upgrading is a sensible aspect ratio for your screen. If you only used for watching super-widescreen video fair enough, but who is going to do that?
Nice idea, but
I like the idea of an environmentally-friendly, well-supported phone.
Unfortunately, I just checked their website and the latest model is €450. That is way outside the budget I will allocate to a phone.
So I'll just continue with my current Galaxy A3 as long as possible, and hopefully I won't have to replace it until I retire, at which point at get myself a basic feature phone that allows you to phone and has a battery that lasts a month.
It's all I will need anyway.
Re: Nice idea, but
Me too. I just ordered a new stock android phone from hong kong for £85.
I'm not spending EU450 on anything unless it has wheels and goes vroom vroom
Re: Nice idea, but
Or they could just make the buggers last. I just put a new battery* in my 7 year old Nexus 5 and apart from the lid cracking a bit on opening (Gaffer tape yeh!) it still gets updates for apps and I haven't found an app that I would want to run on a phone for a few years.
* 4 days now and still on 40% +
Re: Nice idea, but
The biggest problem is they are small, why not just buy the spares the build your own (Ok I don't think they have everything but their price for replacement parts is reasonable to myself)?
Re: Nice idea, but
Of course you have to pay more for a product with an ethical supply chain - especially a gadget which uses rare earth metals. I was happy to do that (and lucky enough to be able to afford it) when I bought my Fairphone2 a little over 3 years ago. And I have to say that the software update policy, and the reality of rollouts, is all that I could wish for.
But the problem is that compared to phones whose components are irrevocably welded together, the Fairphone's modular design causes connection problems between the different modules, resulting in unreliability. They've worked really hard to get this as good as it can be, but if (like me) you treat your phone quite roughly (keeping it caseless in your pocketses), reliability can be a real problem - I replaced three modules which failed in the first two years of use, and had to wedge the battery against the case using a bit of cardboard to stop it from disconnecting. It's great that modules are replaceable, and the replacements were cheap - but replacements take about 3 weeks to be delivered (to the UK at least), during which I had no Fairphone. I ended up keeping a spare phone, which made the whole thing rather pointless.
And when the Fairphone developed an intermittent fault with the screen becoming unresponsive, I replaced the screen module (a bit more expensive than the other modules) only to find that the problem persisted because it was a fault with the motherboard / system unit - which isn't available as a module and can't be replaced.
I really want the Fairphone project to work, but after this latest fault I've switched back to an unethical phone. If Fairphone ever produce a welded-together, non-modular phone whose components are ethically sourced and whose software is regularly updated for years, I would buy back in. But I fear that making the phone easy to repair inevitably makes it less reliable, at least in my experience.
You will find if you look at Fairphone's support forum that I'm not alone in this experience. But to be fair, my better half has had her Fairphone2 for nearly as long as I had mine, and it's behaved impeccably. That one lives in a case, in a handbag, and is probably treated much more gently than mine - even though it has way more hours of use on a typical day. Maybe mine was a Friday afternoon unit - or maybe I just treated it badly.
YMMV.
Nice idea, but
Fuck the peasants. If they don't want to work in the mineral mines they should get a nice job in IT.
planned obsolescence - It's everywhere
Just this week discovered that my Sony Blue-ray disk player has Windows 7 and no longer wants to talk to Youtube or most anything on the internet.
Just today, after my Denon internet radio returned from repair for a failed firmware update, it refuses to access internet radio because Denon, in their wisdom gave that job to another company that now wants a subscription.
"To its credit, Google is trying to simplify the process of delivering Android updates FOR VENDORS." [Emphasis added]
That's the problem right there. As the article points out, the vendors aren't interested.