Most active commenters
  • palata(7)
  • bluGill(3)

←back to thread

Fairphone 6 is switching to a new design that's even more sustainable

(www.androidcentral.com)
401 points Bluestein | 25 comments | 23 Jun 25 15:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
squarefoot ◴[24 Jun 25 06:54 UTC] No.44363502[source]▶
All phones eventually become obsolete, but their guts could be used in so many ways. I'd love for example if someone made an enclosure acting also as multi port docking station so that old phones with unlocked bootloader (Fairphone being one of them) could be reflashed with a different operating system then used as mini PCs, media players, IoT wall terminals with bigger screens or other uses. Seeing all that perfectly good electronics going into landfills because planned obsolescence says so just irritates me. Can we do that at least for unlocked ones? Framework did something similar for their laptop mainboards, minus the docking station.function as they already have more ports than a phone. Any chances that this could be doable with Fairphone hardware?
replies(8): >>44364053 #>>44364058 #>>44364069 #>>44364135 #>>44364145 #>>44364675 #>>44365442 #>>44366606 #
1. palata ◴[24 Jun 25 08:53 UTC] No.44364135[source]▶
> then used as mini PCs, media players, IoT wall terminals with bigger screens or other uses

If they can be used like that, why couldn't they be used... as phones?

Changing phone every two years is not sustainable, even if the old phone is used as an IoT wall terminal: it's still "consuming" one phone every two years. In a sense, an old phone in a drawer uses less energy than an old phone staying powered to control a lightbulb.

> planned obsolescence

Nitpick: I like to call it "premature obsolescence". Planned obsolescence is the idea of engineering the product to not last more than some time. I think nowadays it's often not the case; rather we engineer the product to last for the time of the warranty (1-2 years) and not more. And a product dying after 1 year is "premature", even though it was not actively engineered for that.

replies(5): >>44364214 #>>44364359 #>>44364585 #>>44365939 #>>44367055 #
2. TheDong ◴[24 Jun 25 09:10 UTC] No.44364214[source]▶
People will usually only carry one phone, and they'll want one that is capable of running recent apps, storing their photos and music, and also taking high quality photos.

If you upgrade a phone to get a new one with a better camera, well, the processor on the old one is probably decent still, it could be a mini PC where the camera quality doesn't matter.

Also, it's a status symbol, you can't just _not_ upgrade.

replies(4): >>44364249 #>>44364261 #>>44364348 #>>44364384 #
3. palata ◴[24 Jun 25 09:17 UTC] No.44364249[source]▶
> they'll want one that is capable of

My feeling is that phones are not evolving that quickly anymore, though.

> If you upgrade a phone to get a new one with a better camera, well, the processor on the old one is probably decent still, it could be a mini PC where the camera quality doesn't matter.

Sure, but if you didn't need the mini PC in the first place, then it's not more sustainable than throwing it away. It's actually less sustainable, because now you consume energy for a mini PC you didn't need.

Not saying people should not get their new toy. Just that they should not pretend it's sustainable :-).

> Also, it's a status symbol, you can't just _not_ upgrade.

Around me it's become more and more of a status symbol to not upgrade. It's sometimes almost a competition of "who has the oldest phone", and nobody is impressed by someone buying the latest iPhone. So... it's not the same everywhere :-).

replies(1): >>44367107 #
4. ikurei ◴[24 Jun 25 09:18 UTC] No.44364261[source]▶
> Also, it's a status symbol, you can't just _not_ upgrade.

This is a huge part of the change we need. I felt proud in a way to show off that I was still using an iPhone 8 until a couple of years ago, and I admire some (techy) people I know still using a phone from that time.

Is pride a healthy, wholesome motivator? May be not, but we're human.

5. WhyNotHugo ◴[24 Jun 25 09:36 UTC] No.44364348[source]▶
> Also, it's a status symbol, you can't just _not_ upgrade.

You can choose not to upgrade.

Obtaining status symbols is a choice (and a pretty vain one too). Even if your lifestyle requires these empty displays of status, that's a choice of lifestyle that you've made.

You can be perfectly successful in life with a 5 years old phone.

replies(1): >>44365937 #
6. snarg ◴[24 Jun 25 09:38 UTC] No.44364359[source]▶
> If they can be used like that, why couldn't they be used... as phones?

To facilitate planned obsolescence, manufacturers stop providing OS updates after a relatively short time. And then they cease providing security patches after a... still relatively short time.

If you unlock the device and install a custom ROM, which may or may not function adequately for you to begin with, then you're probably also compromising secure boot, which is a problem for the security model of how many people use phones -- and many apps simply refuse to work with this setup (whereas the obsolete OS with no security patches is considered fine, apparently).

replies(2): >>44364455 #>>44365219 #
7. lan321 ◴[24 Jun 25 09:42 UTC] No.44364384[source]▶
> People will usually only carry one phone

On that note, please, someone make a phone with more than 2 active SIMs. At this point, I have four SIMs, and they're more likely to increase than to reduce...

8. xeonmc ◴[24 Jun 25 09:55 UTC] No.44364455[source]▶
Why couldn’t manufacturers proclaiming to espouse longevity, such as Fairphone, release the vendor source code for out-of-support hardware which are supposedly no longer relevant and so doesn’t matter if the competition can see the code? Or is it an issue of signing certificates?
replies(2): >>44365232 #>>44385445 #
9. Tijdreiziger ◴[24 Jun 25 10:19 UTC] No.44364585[source]▶
Under the new EU Ecodesign regulation, smartphone manufacturers must provide software updates for at least 5 years after the date of last sale, not 1-2 years.

(Applies to newly released devices, not to devices which were already on the market as of June 20).

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/new-eu-rules...

replies(1): >>44365033 #
10. Vilian ◴[24 Jun 25 11:34 UTC] No.44365033[source]▶
Would that translate in 5 years Android updates or just security updates?
replies(1): >>44366026 #
11. palata ◴[24 Jun 25 12:01 UTC] No.44365219[source]▶
> To facilitate planned obsolescence, manufacturers stop providing OS updates

I don't think it works like that. Manufacturers stop providing OS updates as soon as they can because providing any kind of support has a cost. Planned obsolescence means "they care about making it obsolete" (active). But the reality is that they just "don't care about keeping the product alive" (passive). And the only way to make them provide updates is to force them by law.

> If you unlock the device and install a custom ROM, which may or may not function adequately for you to begin with, then you're probably also compromising secure boot

You can relock the bootloader with the FairPhone. You will still have a message saying it's a custom OS, but I don't think it compromises the secure boot, does it?

> many apps simply refuse to work with this setup

I heard that there are apps that refuse to work with an unlocked bootloader, but I haven't heard of apps refusing to work with a relocked bootloader. Is that a thing?

replies(1): >>44366640 #
12. palata ◴[24 Jun 25 12:03 UTC] No.44365232{3}[source]▶
I wonder, but it could be that some of the hardware they use doesn't offer an open source firmware. Qualcomm for instance isn't super open.

IMO we should put in the law that manufacturers have to mainstream their device and provide a way to flash an updated firmware. There is no way they do it without being forced, because it's a pure source of cost for them.

That's how it works: companies optimise in the legal framework we give them. Regulations set that framework.

13. komali2 ◴[24 Jun 25 13:17 UTC] No.44365937{3}[source]▶
Maybe we can do to phones what tech bros did to suits in the early 2000's. There's that saying, something along the lines of, "It used to be that everyone looked to the one in the suit, now everyone looks to the one in a hoodie." Maybe we can convince people that a run down secondhand phone is a display of wealth and power :P
14. jvanderbot ◴[24 Jun 25 13:17 UTC] No.44365939[source]▶
I haven't bought a new phone in ages. I buy second-hand phones (making them often 1-2 years old), then I either resell them after I'm done (usually I cycle every 3-5 years), or I do precisely this - turning them into app controllers or wallets or something. Or games, etc. I keep two around in case one breaks.

This isn't hard. And it saves a ton of money.

15. bmicraft ◴[24 Jun 25 13:26 UTC] No.44366026{3}[source]▶
The law only cares about security, but manufacturers are free to do better than that.
16. bluGill ◴[24 Jun 25 14:27 UTC] No.44366640{3}[source]▶
Manufactures care about support for as long as they think consumers will care. If phones stop working one month after you buy them consumers would revolt. They have decided that 2 years is an acceptable number for customers - long enough that most will be willing to pay to upgrade after that long. If you are one of the "cheap" customers who want to keep your phone longer they want to force you to spend money and most customers seem to be willing to pay then so they are happy.
replies(1): >>44367241 #
17. ◴[24 Jun 25 15:07 UTC] No.44367055[source]▶
18. parineum ◴[24 Jun 25 15:11 UTC] No.44367107{3}[source]▶
> Around me it's become more

You've become older and the status symbols have changed.

replies(1): >>44367306 #
19. palata ◴[24 Jun 25 15:25 UTC] No.44367241{4}[source]▶
And that is why we need regulations that force them to make phones that last longer.
replies(1): >>44367519 #
20. palata ◴[24 Jun 25 15:31 UTC] No.44367306{4}[source]▶
Sure, that's part of it.

But I stay convinced that in the beginning of smartphones, they would dramatically improve every year. Now... not so much.

21. bluGill ◴[24 Jun 25 15:51 UTC] No.44367519{5}[source]▶
Why should someone who is going to throw their phone away in 2 years (or less) anyway be forced to subsidize those who want to keep theirs longer? There is a cost to supporting old hardware and that needs to be paid by someone.
replies(2): >>44368340 #>>44371686 #
22. palata ◴[24 Jun 25 17:03 UTC] No.44368340{6}[source]▶
I was assuming that we as a society would rather want to survive this century, but you're right, maybe we don't. We surely act like we really, really don't.

But hypothetically, if we were to want to survive, such regulations would be some of the very easy steps to take (and by far not enough, of course).

And again, I think you're right: it's far more likely that we as a society will just collapse, so maybe it's not even worth wondering what we would do if we didn't want it.

replies(1): >>44377127 #
23. BobaFloutist ◴[24 Jun 25 22:24 UTC] No.44371686{6}[source]▶
Why should someone who is going to throw their phone away in a day (or less) anyway be forced to subsidize those who want to keep theirs longer? There is a cost to supporting old hardware, and that needs to be paid by someone.
24. bluGill ◴[25 Jun 25 13:31 UTC] No.44377127{7}[source]▶
Throwing phones away is not going to cause society to collapse.
25. immibis ◴[26 Jun 25 08:41 UTC] No.44385445{3}[source]▶
Contracts with vendors, usually. Vendors who make not much of their profit from Fairphone and would happily cut them off if they wanted terms like that.

There's a reason Pine64's devices (which are made out of parts with available public datasheets as much as possible - they don't do the software side of things) are mostly made with parts from a few generations ago, whose manufacturer doesn't care much any more.