Re: Fairphone lessons
On Friday 17. May 2019 12.19.36 Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: > > While I think that warranties for electronics could and should be longer, I > think the comparison to household appliances is unfair. > > Mobile phones may undergo less physical stress than washing mashines in > absolute terms, but operate withing much tighter tolerances. In other words, > there are plenty of places on my washing machine where hitting it with a > hammer would do minimal damage. The same is not true for a mobile phone, > and simply cannot be true due to physical constraints... It is true that washing machines can be overengineered by a greater margin and not change the nature of the product. However, they are still susceptible to failure through improper use, lack of maintenance and care, and so on. One might also argue that the economics do not favour their repair, either, and that many people would simply replace a failing appliance than spend comparable amounts on repairing it. However, what led to the dispute about warranties was the continual refusal of manufacturers (particularly Nokia if I recall correctly) to honour warranties because of moisture damage supposedly due to improper use. This raises genuine questions about what conditions such products should be reasonably be operated under, alongside issues of appropriate design and manufacturer responsibility. I don't think it is unreasonable for people to expect their phones to last at least five years. The argument that phones get better all the time and that people "need" to upgrade constantly is even weaker now than it was, partly because (like with other products) the customer discovers that what they have already is "good enough", that upgrading delivers fewer new benefits than the last upgrade did, and partly because the upgrade treadmill was shamefully exploited with personal computers and that this is just another outing for it. Paul ___ 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
Re: Fairphone lessons
Am Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2019, 14:29:28 CEST schrieb Paul Boddie: > On Wednesday 15. May 2019 12.51.36 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 14 Mai 2019 13:24:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > These are presumably the same apologists for phone manufacturers trying > > > to > > > cut warranty terms where I live: people who openly said that they bought > > > a > > > new phone every six months, that longer warranties would make phones > > > more > > > expensive, and that nobody needed them anyway (presumably because at six > > > months, they would sell their phone to some hapless buyer or fake up > > > some > > > kind of insurance claim). > > Just to give some more context here, the argument went that phones should > have a substantially shorter warranty than household appliances like > washing machines (which I think was, maybe still is, five years) despite > being more expensive in many cases. One can argue that washing machines and > other appliances undergo substantially more physical stress than phones, > which was usually the reason for failure and warranty claims. While I think that warranties for electronics could and should be longer, I think the comparison to household appliances is unfair. Mobile phones may undergo less physical stress than washing mashines in absolute terms, but operate withing much tighter tolerances. In other words, there are plenty of places on my washing machine where hitting it with a hammer would do minimal damage. The same is not true for a mobile phone, and simply cannot be true due to physical constraints... Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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
Re: Fairphone lessons
On Wednesday 15. May 2019 12.51.36 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 14 Mai 2019 13:24:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > > These are presumably the same apologists for phone manufacturers trying to > > cut warranty terms where I live: people who openly said that they bought a > > new phone every six months, that longer warranties would make phones more > > expensive, and that nobody needed them anyway (presumably because at six > > months, they would sell their phone to some hapless buyer or fake up some > > kind of insurance claim). Just to give some more context here, the argument went that phones should have a substantially shorter warranty than household appliances like washing machines (which I think was, maybe still is, five years) despite being more expensive in many cases. One can argue that washing machines and other appliances undergo substantially more physical stress than phones, which was usually the reason for failure and warranty claims. > > The problem is that we have to share a planet with idiots like this, > > There are many reasons why using Free Software with phone hardware last > lasts longer is an advantage. I believe that some of those people can be > convinced or persuaded to buy more Free Software and open hardware based > products. However calling or thinking about them as "idiots" won't help > with this. I can understand if this comes out of frustration, though. Of course it comes out of frustration because we literally have to share a planet with this kind of behaviour. If such behaviour isn't idiocy then what is it? Selfish, destructive, wasteful, anti-social? What happens to all the stuff that isn't sold? Does it make its way back for re-manufacturing or does it wander off into secondary markets where people might get a chance to buy it for less (because people in those markets are poorer)? What if the units aren't sold then? Are they dismantled or recycled there or elsewhere? What environmental protections are there for the people doing such work? Does everything end up in landfill? People who don't have time to think about such issues may not be "idiots", although one has to wonder what they do think about if they are buying a new phone every six months. But I think it is fair comment to call people doing so *and* actively lobbying against more responsible behaviour "idiots". They perpetuate a system in which things are produced at incredible cost (beyond the price tag) for someone to be distracted with for a short while, if they even get into a customer's hands. And the cost of recovering the needless waste from this exercise is largely pushed onto others to bear, just so that the producers can ready yet another set of single-season products to shower the market with. [...] > > with their behaviour validating the destructive and wasteful actions of > > corporations who are not being held responsible for the consequences of > > their "need" to make money. > > Note that this is a common missunderstanding: Organisations (like companies > and even charities) have to be economically viable to be able to persist and > fullfil their "tasks". Just "making money" (or a profit) is **not the > purpose** of most organisations in the narrower sense. Income maybe a > necessity, though. Owners, customers, employees and other stakeholders all > have an influence on how a company acts. In various cases, companies use the existence of the other groups as an excuse for their own behaviour. They claim that shareholders demand the maximum returns or that customers demand the cheapest possible products. It is true that some shareholders and customers, particularly the former, do not care about anything other than their own interests. But it can be very convenient to point the finger at others in order to justify "business as usual". Again, I think it is refreshing that organisations like Fairphone act in ways to promote more responsible production of phones, largely by prioritising instead of neglecting genuine concerns around the entire product lifecycle. And Fairphone may be a lot better than other vendors in this regard. But given that I know relatively little about the other lifecycle issues but a bit more about Free Software and software maintenance issues, why should I not highlight areas of concern about decisions made by Fairphone? I may feel bad doing so (and be made to feel bad about it, too), but what if Fairphone had put Windows Mobile on their products instead? Some people might then have regarded the "fair" aspects of their products as mere box-ticking elements in an otherwise undesirable package. And there are people who are annoyed at Fairphone for providing a product that runs Google products and accesses Google services, arguably being built for surveillance. What should we say to them? That their concerns are not valid or are unfair to the company? I think that encouragement or advocacy is just not enough: it has to be
Re: Fairphone lessons (Re: Shiftphones details)
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
Re: Fairphone lessons (Re: Shiftphones details)
On Tuesday 14. May 2019 08.52.29 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Freitag 10 Mai 2019 17:06:40 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > it surprises me that they have not managed to > > attract broader publicity. > > Shiftphones seem to focus on Germany (or German speaking companies). > It is a significant invest to create text and give support in a second > language. Agreed. But it still surprises me that a wider audience were not aware of it, not through any efforts of the company targeting other countries and audiences (or not doing so), but simply because word does get around. > > My understanding (and recollection) is that Fairphone fell into the same > > "original design manufacturer" trap that lots of people do. Now, most > > vendors do not care about the lack of longevity of the thing that they > > have procured: they can always sell or give an unhappy customer the next > > thing coming out of the factory. > > In my perception Fairphone aimed for an improvement in longevity of their > product and were successful. The Fairphone 2 was produced and on sale for > about 30 something month. Fairphone 2 is still supported with software updates, as I understand it. This is obviously a good thing and it may even be a notable thing in the mobile industry and in consumer electronics where the manufacturers have an incentive to sell customers a new model rather than support existing ones. I was looking at update and source code availability for certain phone manufacturers only yesterday, and despite various practical challenges, it did seem to be possible to get updates for older models from certain manufacturers. For example, bq models seem to have relatively recent source code and firmware updates. However, the aim should be for indefinite support: that is, support for the software should continue until nobody is practically able or willing to produce updates. Economic factors play a part here, clearly, because if there is continual churn in the code, lots of work is needed to prepare, test and deploy updates. Here, something could very easily be said about software engineering (or lack of it) causing such labour-intensive processes and discouraging sustained support of deployed software. But other aspects, like a lack of standardisation of the hardware (with a tendency for each new product to be different and special and thus merit a completely new software effort) and proprietary/secretive hardware that only the manufacturer is able to support (with no incentive to do so once newer products are available), undermine or defeat any independent efforts to support software. Despite Free Software being used, end-users are being denied control by selfish interests. And let us not forget that some manufacturers simply deny end-users the right to exercise the privileges granted in the Free Software licensing used in those manufacturers' products. Such behaviour is an affront to our principles and what organisations like the FSFE stand for, and yet such behaviour was practically excused within the Linux kernel development community, especially in the upper levels of it, because we should supposedly be happy that Free Software is being widely used. Again, what good is Free Software if the end- user never gets all the promised benefits? > > a Free Software initiative would have encountered software sustainability > > issues at the first hurdle, giving them the opportunity to back up and > > choose a different approach. > > 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. I think my criticism is harsh, but it demonstrates that Fairphone were not "a Free Software initiative" because they did not give the issue of the software the priority it deserved, at least for the first product. And due to the way software and services are being developed and delivered nowadays, software viability has probably become the primary limit to product longevity (perhaps alongside battery degradation and other "repairability" issues that Fairphone have also confronted, to their credit). > 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. Yes, I recognise their achievements. And they have improved with regard to the software, meaning that I look forward to what they produce next. > > Naturally, the whole mobile industry suffers from these issues, too: it is > >
Fairphone lessons (Re: Shiftphones details)
Am Freitag 10 Mai 2019 17:06:40 schrieb Paul Boddie: > it surprises me that they have not managed to > attract broader publicity. Shiftphones seem to focus on Germany (or German speaking companies). It is a significant invest to create text and give support in a second language. > My understanding (and recollection) is that Fairphone fell into the same > "original design manufacturer" trap that lots of people do. Now, most > vendors do not care about the lack of longevity of the thing that they have > procured: they can always sell or give an unhappy customer the next thing > coming out of the factory. In my perception Fairphone aimed for an improvement in longevity of their product and were successful. The Fairphone 2 was produced and on sale for about 30 something month. > a Free Software initiative would > have encountered software sustainability issues at the first hurdle, giving > them the opportunity to back up and choose a different approach. 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. > Naturally, the whole mobile industry suffers from these issues, too: it is > like the Wintel upgrade treadmill turbo-upgraded for the 21st century. As > software practitioners, we should be looking to offer real solutions for > this. I agree, thought we first must understand the real reasons behind fast upgrades. Some customers are very happy about a new model each year and they'll buy it. > Why shouldn't my next phone be usable, even in a modest sense, for as > long as my current one, which is actually fifteen years old? One thing is technical progress, there is 5G coming and at some point you'll may need a phone that uses the standard. Another example there are websites or services that you would want to use, that only run with hardware and software that is newer. > where the people trying to make > such phones are outsiders and are not part of the manufacturer ecosystem, > with its convenient and cheap access to knowledge and technical resources, > and so on. And getting access to the right people to solve problems is > difficult given the low volumes and outsider status of such initiatives. What I've heard from the OpenMoko project and others is that you cannot get the top line of SOCs from manufactures in small numbers. Something like you'll have to buy 10.000 at least and then put the money down up-front. Knownn the right people won't help with that. > I was actually surprised in my review of available phones that Fairphone 2 > is now no longer available, although factory-refurbished ones can be > obtained for a discount. This is a recent development (in the last weeks). Probably a good one, a Fairphone 3 is needed for a while now. > What might have been interesting is if the modular > technology had been popularised, shared, standardised, and so on, so that > others could have made upgrades and continued the general availability of > the product. You know that all this would have meant significant efforts and Fairphone is a small company (in a growth phase, with all the pain coming with it). At least they have shown that it works and there is a market for it (even when small). This is a large archievement. Best Regards, Bernhard -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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
