Happy FairPhone 4 user here. Running 3+ years, only replaced the battery once. Aim to keep it 7-10 years, barring unforeseen events like theft. Not going to replace it just because a newer model is released.
That's a lot, I usually use old phones from family members, most of them have 4 years of use by the time I get them and I get a whole day of usage from the battery.
Honestly, not sure. I use Firefox Mobile pretty heavily during the day and I suspect it's part of the drain. I'm not too concerned by it and I just try to replace the battery every ~1-1.5 years.
I suppose it's a testament to their success, but, I have a fairphone 3 from almost 6 years now, and I'm a bit annoyed that they're basically "sunsetting it" (no more software updates, no more spare parts.)
My fairphone 2 had lasted 5 years, but was completely unusable at the end. My current phone works very well (again, huge kudos to the team if anyone is reading this), and I would not mind trying to reach the decade with it - but in a few months, someone (my bank, a shop, a 2FA, whatever) will ask for an unsupported android feature.
I know people will give me names of exotic non-android distros, but will they run my bank's app :/ ?
I had a similar experience but with the Fairphone 2. I never swapped out any parts because performance hardware upgrades never became available and it was superseded by the Fairphone 3. I've not invested again in a Fairphone since. I've no interest in paying extra for repairability I'm never going to use since they have the same obsolescence/replacement model as any other phone.
The Fairphone 6+ looks really interesting but I'm not seeing it having the ability to wirelessly charge. I exclusively charge my Pixel 10 XL Pro (25w+) phone on a wireless charger now in the car and at my house and really like it, I don't want to go back to plugging in a USBC cable anymore unless it's an emergency. Am I missing something? Does it support Qi 2?
GrapheneOS is like a veteran and war zone expert: for them, not only the external environment is considered extremely hostile that you should leave your house only wearing an armor and with bodyguards, but also the internal environment is hostile: your bodyguards could be bribed and work against you, that's why you need to somehow be protected against that as well.
Just as physical security, digital security most of the time not as radical, and tradeoffs are usually accepted, especially when they are "invisible": hardware and software security features are usually not mentioned in the specs and the regular and even power user just don't know most of them and what do they do.
When GrapheneOS says "private" and "secure", they mean top-of-the-line security features, updates as soon as possible, all available mitigations against zero-days and insecure code which will limit the impact before the patch, etc. Security as in a killdozer.
When other say "private" and "secure", most of the time it means: "we've followed all the recommendations applicable to our development budget, device price point, and support life time". Graphene does not like that definition of these words.
For smartphone, chip manufacturer goal is not to protect the user at all costs, but to provide reasonable security features for the price.
BUT the goal of chip manufacturer to protect the device at all costs is for… game consoles! That's why Xbox, PlayStation, Switch all run on a custom silicon and not an ordinary chips!
> That's why Xbox, PlayStation, Switch all run on a custom silicon and not an ordinary chips!
Not really. Xbox and PlayStation both run on pretty standard AMD Zen 2 chips. Somewhat customized, but standard enough that people by binned playstation 5 motherboards to use as computers with normal OS'es (lookup BC-250). The last gen with more customized chips was the PS3/Xbox360 era, when both went with a variant of PowerPC, same as Gamecube/Wii/WiiU.
Switch runs on basically the same Nvidia Tegra CPU/GPU as multiple android tablets.
>but standard enough that people by binned playstation 5 motherboards to use as computers
That doesn't mean that all the features are enabled right from the factory, or that the compatibility with already existing features is lost.
Modern chip's security features are pretty complicated and include hardware patches, hardware debug authentication, multiple provisioning states (and multi-key hierarchy for that), RMA states to clear all the private information, etc.
>Switch runs on basically the same Nvidia Tegra CPU/GPU as multiple android tablets.
Yes, and the one which got cracked with a bootrom vulnerability ;)
That's a pretty working motivation for a chip company to improve their chip security when the company as beefy as Nintendo tells them that their chip is vulnerable they're losing money because the customers can play for free ;). I'm pretty sure patchable bootroms started to be common only after Switch hack.
I think you should listen to bringup of Linux on Playstation talk from CCC to understand that those platforms are much more than just "somewhat customized".
There are whole sections of peripheral chips missing and they behave quite a bit differently with how they bootstrap and where things are mapped in memory.
>GrapheneOS is like a veteran and war zone expert: for them, not only the external environment is considered extremely hostile that you should leave your house only wearing an armor and with bodyguards, but also the internal environment is hostile: your bodyguards could be bribed and work against you, that's why you need to somehow be protected against that as well.
Yeah, iPhoens are made that way as well. It's just caring about the privacy of your users.
> When GrapheneOS says "private" and "secure", they mean top-of-the-line security features, updates as soon as possible, all available mitigations against zero-days and insecure code which will limit the impact before the patch, etc. Security as in a killdozer.
I think it's deceptive because people think they will get better privacy/security with a /e/ fairphone when it's actually much worse than an iPhone.
iPhone is top-of-the-line as well, because they control the whole software and the whole hardware (starting from basically all the chips). That's very rare in the industry.
There are just a bunch of companies which afford to do the same. Maybe Xiaomi will be the next one.
It's amazing how people still fall for the marketing. Apple is an ad company, just like Google. Advertising and data collection is baked into their OS, store, and core apps. They're just trailing behind revenue-wise by a few years.
Privacy and security from what is the question. From big tech or from criminals and governments that take your device and plug it into cellebrite machines?
I for one prefer to be protected from big tech. Sure GrapheneOS does both, but Apple does not.
Fairphone makes their fair share of blunders. Software updates are a big issue, especially around the times that critical vulnerabilities need to be patched.
With the hardware I'm not impressed, and on their own forum I've seen plenty of people reporting issues with overheating on the Gen 6. Hopefully kinks have been ironed out on their 6+.
The current CEO also has a persona that would stir up any community (read a few of his AI-gened posts on their blog, if interested of context).
Still holding on to my FP4, but they are not of consideration on my future phone purchase, unless there is some kind of reality check over there and improvements materialize beyond words.
Ultimately, a lot of the “fairness”
of the Fairphone is offered by “just buy a really popular manufacturer.”
Everyone and their dog can repair an iPhone because it’s the most popular phone on the planet. Are those repairs accessible to the consumer at home with amateur skills? No, not really. However, newer iPhone models are significantly easier to repair and come along with lower repair costs direct from the manufacturer compared to previous models.
You want years of software updates? Yeah, an iPhone has you covered there, too.
And of course, fairphone’s hardware and OS are nothing to write home about. For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
Who is the Fairphone for exactly? Who is buying it and why?
I think the fairbuds are their best product, but I also imagine AirPods Pro 3 are on a whole different level of sound quality, noise cancelation, voice quality/voice isolation, and firmware/software polish.
And let’s be honest about repairability with tiny earbuds: being able to replace the battery is has such a tiny impact on their footprint. If I have to throw out my
AirPods Pro 3 every 5 years due to battery degradation, that’s such an insignificant quantity of material being wasted, so it’s probably worth it to get a better product. I could offset my environmental impact by eating a little less beef or riding my bike instead of driving a few times. You drive 30 miles and that’s an entire gallon of refined petroleum product, how much material and energy is used to make one pair of AirPods? I can’t imagine it’s a lot.
I don’t say any of this to be a big corporate or Apple shill. I am rooting for the little guys. But the little guys need to be realistic. You look at products like the Framework 13 Pro and you can actually say, okay, here’s a product with really legitimate benefits over its incumbent competition. There is a reason to buy this product for a certain buyer. I just don’t see that with Fairphone. I can’t think of a customer profile where that person is getting a better ownership experience with Fairphone products.
I'm not big on this general line on argument, but one point in particular:
> And of course, fairphone’s hardware and OS are nothing to write home about. For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
For the "freedom nerds", FP is one of the only (if not the only?) vendor to have official support for microG-based operating systems, seamless OTA updates and everything included. The Murena e/OS offering in particular is simple enough that the non-nerds that (perhaps less outspokenly) care about freedom can just pick it up with little change in habits.
I guess that’s true, although we could possibly split that camp into two sides: the folks who believe that Play Store sandboxing is going to be more functional, and the folks who prefer microG are willing to accept the issues that come along with it.
To be fair on either side of that debate, getting a phone that comes with /e/OS installed from the factory is going to be easier than flashing GrapheneOS on a Pixel or LineageOS with microG on another device.
> For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
Not quite. The people who care about security first are better off with GOS, yes. However, GOS's threat model very specifically treats the user as a thing to defend against; the freedom-first crowd should avoid them.
isn't the main point of Fairphone to not use conflict minerals?
by using FOSS only myself and hating monopolies like Apple etc., i still pretty much convinced that being "green" or "ethical" is more about participating/volunteering/doing-something towards a better world than off-loading your duty to other companies... one could easily make a point that Apple products despite locked down, are still green (Apple has a bunch of zero-emission and whatever policies) and much more if one uses their devices for a long while. i had a 2° hand iPhone SE 1° gen. till 2021? if stuff breaks despite your not being able to fix it's not like you can't hop into a specialized shop to change batteries or even pay the expensive service Apple offers... sure that allows exploitation and it's always nice to get rid of it, that's why somehow these emerging companies are important and/or policies like the right of repair will make them obsolete
The new Sennheiser earbuds have replaceable batteries too so the fairbuds are no longer unique in that regard. I haven't read comparisons on sound quality though
And of course, wired headphones still exist as an alternative for those who really don’t like the battery aspect, and it’s not even terribly inconvenient for phones without a headphone jack.
I suspect that the venn diagram of the kind of person who takes issue with Bluetooth audio batteries and the kind of person willing to use wired headphones or prefers them outright has a lot of overlap.
I think this has historically been true and is still approximately true now. But I think in the relatively near future (less than 5 years) there's a really good chance it won't be true anymore.
Once open models catch up to the current frontier in vulnerability exploitation, the cost to target people will go way down. In the past, the cost to hack a random individual person was generally high enough that if there wasn't some special reason to hack you in particular, it wasn't worth it. That may no longer be the case in the near future. The floor of what is acceptable security for the General Public probably needs to rise quite a bit over the next few years.
Why would you assume Google, Apple, and defense-oriented agencies like CISA wouldn't also have access to those same models, but using them to fix issues?
Its just raising the bar across the board, I don't see how only attackers would benefit.
I think it heavily depends. If you are concerned cops or CBP are going to try to take your phone and search it then wanting a phone like GOS is a very reasonable precaution.
Even if you haven't done anything "wrong", you may have engaged in speech or activities that the current US admin has deemed problematic and will try to punish you for if they can find any evidence.
They generally don't like other projects, they also compare the security to the "Android Open Source Project" as if it's a real thing, AOSP doesn't run on a single phone on earth and as such isn't an option for anybody.
And for the updates I could comment that
> Fairphone 6 with stock OS has very lacking security due to delayed patches (1-2 months for partial backports, much longer for full Android patches)
Another day, another instance of GrapheneOS bitching about Fairphone. It's not like any other device meets their ridiculous standards either, and now that Google is closing up Android and delaying patches, neither will their own Motorola whenever they get around to actually making it.
It's a reasonable extrapolation of the current state. They want up to date patches, Google is already winding down open support for that, and it'll release in what, a year or two? Basically guaranteed to have outdated security patches on launch or they'll have to start maintaining their own. Might happen, but it seems unlikely they can hack it, as it were.
> A quick search would basically disprove everything after your first sentence.
If this is so simple, you surely can demonstrate it and present the links. Meanwhile there are still no phones acceptable for GrapheneOS except from Google, and it's a known fact that Google is restricting Android step by step:
There are devices meeting these basic standards right now, and the entire family of them, no less.
GOS are vocal about safety and security of all the devices, not just seriously insecure Fairphones, and this article is about something different altogether, that's misinformation they've been hit with several times.
Fair criticism is fair, but yours is fabrications.
Criticizing others while only using Google Pixels is such intense hypocrisy that I cannot possibly take them seriously or fairly. Like if someone rolled up in a Ford Raptor rolling coal while selling solar panels or something.
Would be neat if Fairphone would build a real compact smartphone, something with 4" or 5" screen. Current device is too large for human pockets and all those protruding camera bumps and buttons are really uncomfortable.
I've always been a bit curious about Fairphone, but as I only get phones that cost less than $200 (and use them until they physically break), I'll probably never get one.
Still only on my second smartphone, so I'm not worried about producing more e-waste.
Great what they are doing - yet I found Shiftphone to be also fair, equally or better repairable and even more open for alternative Operating Systems. I think Fairphone supports 2 OSes officially, Shiftphone has a whole custom ROM list of ~10.
Ten? So like Android and Linux flavors? I'm not sure I even know of ten: e/OS, Calyx, Lineage, Ubuntu Touch, eh is there like Mobian or something still alive... how do they get to ten?? Do they also all fully work? Camera and calling (and not only on 2G) for example?
I'd be interested in the list, the website you've linked is super sparse (the full menu is like shop, some feel-good pages about device deposit and impact, blog, and contact us - no knowledge base, documentation, or somewhere where you'd expect to find OS info or even downloads)
EU regulations already mandate that the batteries should be user-replaceable and other parts easily replaceable. The difference between Fairphone and the competition will narrow in the future.
Except for the fact that Samsung is the 800 pounds gorilla in the smartphone space which you'll know will be around for some time. How long is Fairphone going to last? Maybe the founders want to retire early and sell to the highest bidder.
I'd much rather see them running GrapheneOS or /e/OS on it also.
There’s a get-out clause in the law that allows your battery not to be required to be user replaceable if it can last 1,000 cycles while remaining at 80+%. Apple’s phones certainly meet that these days, and I imagine Samsung’s will as well (though I’m not sure if silicon carbide changes that at all).
Anyone have any updates on why this device can’t support or get behind Graphene OS? A repairable and secure phone is my desired option for a phone that’s truely mine and I’m sure this is true for many others also.
From my understanding it’s not there as the Graphene team says that fairphone haven’t taken security hardware seriously and there’s key hardware security features missing that means they are not even interested to look at supporting the device.
Keen for latest updates on this, happy to be corrected.
I believe the GrapheneOS team demands, in particular, a security feature called Memory Tagging Extensions (MTE). This feature has a phone's processor attach a "tag" to each memory location saying what's stored there and requires accesses to that memory to bear a matching tag. Buffer overflow type attacks are effectively prevented because a read into the adjoining region having a different tag gets rejected.
This feature is usually NOT present in desktop computers, and has only really been implemented by the Google Pixel hardware so far. It's unclear why it's viewed as being so critically necessary for Graphene: MTE is certainly useful but I personally wouldn't say its absence indicates an "insecure" device, and it imposes both a clear performance (and battery life!) penalty and a significant hardware burden on the SoC manufacturer. It's a pretty significant trade-off.
Anyway, that's the biggest single reason why GrapheneOS devs say "this hardware is not adequately secure": 99% of phone chips are excluded because they do not support MTE.
While yes I am on GrapheneOS' side on these issues, I'm surprised nobody clones the GrapheneOS repo and simply disables the minimal handful of features which block it from working on devices. Maybe calling the clone CarbonOS? If MTE is required to boot GrapheneOS and Fairphones don't have MTE, then Fairphone clones GrapheneOS and disables MTE for its images. Graphene has so many features beyond just hardware security that other Androids lack, that it would be worthwhile to do this and it would still be higher security than the others (even if it's below GrapheneOS' own full security). Sensor & network permissions, storage & contact scopes, autoreboot, scrambled pin, radio auto-off, MAC address randomization, and more, I'm sure don't require MTE or Titan etc. Just follow GrapheneOS as upstream, making sure that the minimal set of changes needed to get it working on other/older devices transfers with the new updates.
> I'm surprised nobody clones the G®apheneOS repo and simply disables the minimal handful of features which block it from working on devices.
I wouldn't recommend that. They would be denounced by GOS (which is just idealism and purism and definitely not bullying – not at all.) Anything which isn't G®apheneOS is by definition technically inferior, wicked, insecure, privacy-invading and should erased from your device immediately.
Lack of MTE is not the only huge reason why the GrapheneOS team refuses most devices. Most vendors' lack of timely bugfixes for device-specific drivers and firmware, and no commitment to keep providing bugfixes for a number of years is another major factor.
Still, a 'degraded' GrapheneOS as my proposed CarbonOS, beats /e/, Lineage, Calyx, and stock. Not doing CarbonOS is throwing the baby (non-hardware hardening and features) out with the bathwater (the lack of hardware hardening). I for one do not wholly rely on Titan and use a long alphanumeric password on my primary profile to ensure BFU disk encryption isn't violated, while living in secondary daily-driver profiles which are PIN protected for ease of use. If I suspect phone seizure becomes a non-infinitesimal possibility, I can just reboot! Additionally, I would love to see an option in GOS that allows me to change the action bound to the panic sequence (5+ rapid presses of power): I would never call police using that sequence, I would 100x rather that sequence cause a shutdown instead. That way if I am asked to hand over my phone I can just panic sequence it as I am removing it from my pocket. As it stands now I would have to pause to interact with the screen to shut it off, significantly increasing the likelihood of the adversary snatching it before I could get it into BFU.
MTE is not the only blocker here. Pixel 7 series do not have it and are currently supported by GrapheneOS. There are other concerns regarding things like a proper secure element implementation and timely firmware/binary blob updates.
Right, but still my CarbonOS idea ('degraded' GrapheneOS) is better than /e/, Lineage, Calyx, and stock. By 'degraded' I mean the minimal changes to current GrapheneOS needed to get it working on a given GrapheneOS-unsupported device.
The recently released Fairphone 6+ runs on Android 16. I had to look that up on Wikipedia, their website doesn't even clearly state that. Android 16 is 14 months old at the moment. Android 17 was released to manufacturers 6 months ago and had a general release 2 months ago.
So why does a brand new phone run an operating system from over a year ago? Does it really take over 6 months to update a phone to a new version of Android?
How am I supposed to believe a company is committing to supporting a phone for a long time when at release it already runs outdated software?
Security is the big reason to want 17 over 16, though I believe 16 is getting a lot of those features backported still.
Otherwise, I preferred 16. The UX, AI, and all the other garbage I really could do without. I don't love it. My phone (pixel 9) feels slower and the battery is now draining like crazy.
Getting security updates for issues that are not marked high/critical. These are not your typical RCE, but they are used in exploit chains.
For those not aware, Android Security Bulletins only cover high/critical vulnerabilities. There are also rumors that Google will soon stop fixing vulnerabilities in not-actual versions that were discovered by Google in LLM-driven vulnerability discovery. There was recently a GrapheneOS thread about it.
I belive you are mistaken. Android 17 final was "released" 6-7 weeks ago.
But Google being Google, this release is pretty much useless until Samsung et al deal with all bugs and performance issues, which will take 2-4 months.
As a Linux, macOS and Windows user it’s really strange to me that you can’t just install the latest OS on your device. Even my iPhone updates to the latest version as soon as it’s released.
Seriously, why can't Android just be installed? Are they building it like the old-timey kernel before modules and embedding drivers in a giant monolith or something ridiculous?
Certification takes time and probably overlaped with the phone development. Fairephone is small compared to e.g. samsung and they describe themself more "stable" and long-term support than bleeding edge.
Even worse: Google actually does four releases releases per year (major and QPRs), of which QPR2 is also provided to OEMs. Only Samsung and GrapheneOS roll out QPR2 releases.
this is 100% in the hands of the SoC manufacturer.
Android versions are locked to kernel versions, which are locked to binary drivers to run your hardware. there's no way around that and you can't reverse engineer or do anything if you want that SoC vendor to continue to fulfill your orders (which you're already at the bottom of the fulfilment list because of low volumes)
If this were genuinely 100% a Qualcomm limitation, I'd expect every Snapdragon 7s Gen 4 phone to be similarly stuck. But Motorola's Edge 70 Fusion uses the same SoC and was already in Android 17 beta testing in February, and Nothing's Phone (4a) and OnePlus Nord CE 6 are also slated for Android 17. So it seems the SoC isn't inherently preventing Android 17.
to promise 5 year of security updates your SoC needs to also have that support for that time frame + part of your developmeant/production time (as you can't the last steps of development/production before that chip is released). Lastly you need to add the duration during which you promise the 5 years security updates.
to put it simple for a 5 year guarantee you need ~8 better 10 year support for the SoC, measured from is release date
a lot of phone SoC (which tend to get Android porting priority by their producer) have shorter support. Hence why the fp5 had a SoC from a product line designed for industrial embedded appliances instead of a phone SoC...
but the main reason is likely simpler:
They are relatively small and likely will updated FP5, 6,6+ to Android 16 roughly at the same time to not have to support multiple major Android versions for the same time.
Still as long as Android 15 still gets security this doesn't matter too much. Recent major Android version IMHO often have been more disruptive then helpful. At least for me, but my guess it's this applies widely for the kind of audience which pay more because they plan to actual have the same smartphone in use for more the 3 years ;)
Still as long as Android 15 still gets security this doesn't matter too much.
It does matter, because Android Security Bulletins only contain fixes for high/critical vulnerabilities. But all the other vulnerabilities can be useful in exploit chains. Add to that that ASBs have a three month embargo, but GrapheneOS and Samsung roll all/some patches out before they are in a security bulletin. So phones like the Fairphone have critical/high CVEs have been known for up to three months for anyone that looks.
but the main reason is likely simpler:
I think the main reason is that they do not do most hardware and software development by themselves, it's done by their Chinese ODM T2Mobile, for which Fairphone is probably just another customer.
Everything is at glacial speed. For instance, Android 16 on FP6 has some IPv6 bugs that breaks WiFi connections after a few minutes for a substantial number of their customers [1]. Six months later, they still haven't been able to properly fix it.
[1] The issues itself is probably not restricted to WiFi, it's that some brands of WiFi routers trigger one or more of the condition. One of which is sending a router advertisement with a lifetime of 0 for the IPv6 prefix used by the network. The connection handling code goes in a state where it misses the next prefix advertisement.
That sounds horrible. I can understand why Apple makes their own chips with the practices that these SoC manufacturers are getting away with.
Perhaps the EU can step in and force these SoC companies to change their way of working so that a user can simply install Android 17 with a few clicks regardless of their hardware (to a point). Like how desktop computers work.
Desktop computers work because Intel and AMD provide support to their chips to Windows and Linux, because these chips are used for desktop and servers, and these OS are what their customers use.
Mobile chips are not used for desktop and servers, not used for Windows and Linux. They are used for Android, and that's a 98% of the market. The customers of the chips (the companies which develop devices on the chips) just don't use Windows or Linux, that's why there's no reason for a chip company to support it.
Android does not use desktop/server firmware, desktop/server bootloader, and even desktop/server stock Linux kernel. They have their own Generic Kernel Image with the Android patches on top, strict Google requirements for the booting and working process, etc.
PC operating systems are supplied by third parties that are not part of the computer manufacturer, motherboard or processor vendor. All component manufacturers must write drivers for Windows, certify them with Microsoft, and make sure that their device works properly ideally on any computer. You, the user, buy (or obtain) a copy of the operating system from the operating system company.
The operating system for a appliance (smartphone) comes with the appliance itself (as a bundle), and is supplied by the appliance manufacturer, not by operating system manufacturer. The manufacturer of electronic components does not need to contact the creators of the operating systems, they write a driver for Android kernel (yes, for Android kernel, with all its wakelock subsystems and such in mind) and gives it to the manufacturer of the appliance directly (and sometimes only supplies hardware, and the driver must be made by the manufacturer of the appliance).
SoC vendor (and correcting myself, every componet vendor, such as camera, touch screen, flash controler, etc) must make the drivers available TO YOU to ship to your customers. picking out binary blobs and reusing is what grapheneos does, and ia highly frowned uppon and will get you blacklisted
Are ya'll really repairing your phones? I replace mine when it can't run Google Maps smoothly anymore.
After 4-5 years, on every phone I've ever had, user interactions begin to lag noticeably. Apps launch much more slowly. Intense graphical apps like maps become frustrating to use. At some point I can't take it anymore and replace the phone, long before its physical parts or battery have worn out.
I've bought new a Google Pixel 7a two years ago, paid for it 400 euros. After 1 year I've dropped it, landed on a corner, screen completely broken, replacement costed screen costed me nearly 120 euros (and was not an original screen, otherwise I would have spent more). Just costs much money because of the fucking fingerprint reader under the screen that why couldn't put it in the back of the phone as they did for many years. Broken it again, fuck it I will not repair it again, with the cost of the repair I may as well buy a new phone.
Then I've decided that is worth either spending money on phones whose replacement parts doesn't cost half of the phone itself, or just buying the cheapest Xiaomi or similar chineese brand phone and when it breaks buy a new one or repair it (funny enough cheap phones are more repairable than expensive ones, so I usually repair them).
I've replaced batteries on Pixel 3 XL and Pixel 6 Pro, both having run GrapheneOS. I use OSMAnd~ with no network permission (except during maps/POI updates). OSMAnd~ shows me where ALPRs are, so I can plan my routes around Flock. :^)
Genuinely, how do you make your phone so slow? I've been using my s10 for 7 years, and besides the minor crack in the corner of the screen from being dropped, and constantly juggling storage because I hoard media, it works as well as it did when it was new.
My family's Pixels have all lasted physically long enough for Google to stop supporting them. My wife was annoyed when I told her she needed a new one because from her perspective there was nothing wrong with her existing one ( lack of security updates is not on her radar.)
I had the same experience. Repeatedly. IMO it's the software, not the hardware. The issues always start/get worse with a big update to Android or the main Google apps.
Nobody is suggesting Fairphone has also replaced Google/Android re SW/OS. What they've arguably done I'd improve the existing situation - surely that counts for something?
There is also nothing precluding them from dropping Android in the future and putting effort into something like Sailfish OS.
Now that Fairphone officially sells phones in the United States, I am likely going to get one specifically because it supports postmarketOS. My Pinephone is so slow that I have never really used it for anything beyond testing.
Reminder that Android is not Linux. The Linux phone experience is completely different from Android. People who utilize distro's like Ubuntu touch or postmarketOS demand that even firmware level binaries are open sourced. GrapheneOS is great, but it's not Linux, and not even close. If we start to confuse the two, we're confronted with the question about Unix, which is shared among both Android and iOS, so you could even say that Android is technically an iPhone. This is obviously wrong but utilizes the same logic as people claiming Android is Linux.
I would love a Fairphone, but no headphone jack is a nonstarter for me. Still blows me away that a company saying they are focused on longevity would get rid of a universal audio interface that we've had for decades. In the article they claim it's to fit other features in, but frankly that's not a believable claim. Other manufacturers manage to get a headphone jack in just fine, without any noticeable downside.
The headphone jack is inside USB-C connector. You can use USB-C-to-3.5mm passive (!) cable to connect your 3.5mm headphones, or you can buy 3.5mm headphones with USB-C audio connection.
There's no additional DAC involved, the analog audio is already on a USB-C pins.
I can't find anything about that in the article or the Fairphone 6 manual. Do you have a source for this?
My main problem with USB-C headphones on my Android phone is how unreliable they are. But if the USB-C port can just pass through an analog audio connection, that should work much better, I expect.
Given how severely that hard requirement restricts your available options, I'd suggest adapting to the USB-C audio world. No, it's not as nice as a headphone jack. But it is a relatively small con to just stick an adapter onto the ends of your 3.5mm devices and replace it a few times a year when it breaks. And yes, you can get a "charge and listen at the same time" adapter.
At this point headphones with an usb-c connection have become nearly as common as 3.5mm trs ones. Additionally you can permamently hook a small usb-c dac with 3.5mm trs output to the headphones of your choice.
Only issue is some very cheap ones are actually bluetooth headphones in disguise where the usb-c connection only exist to power the bt recepter inside the headphone. I find this completely stupid.
> If there are tradeoffs, if would be nice if the customers can decide what to have, in a modular product.
A "modular product" has tradeoffs in and of itself (such as size, price, water resistance, …), which presumably would not fly for a majority of customers.
Parts for the Fairphone 2 (2015) and Fairphone 3 (2019) aren't available anymore, but I suppose that's not all that surprising after 11 respective 7 years.
Afair, they started running out of some Fairphone 3 spare parts around 2024 and kept the ones they still had for warranty repairs. Source: I own one (and switched to the Fairphone 6 early this year).
presumably longer if they were more popular and repair shops stock up on the parts. I assume most FP users are fairly tech savvy and would just purchase multiple components that are more likely to fail as a just-in-case (much like I do for bearings, headlights, and other small parts for my car)
Reminds me of the cold steel throwing axe that I bought that specifically has replaceable handles in case you break one. No one actually sells the handles though!
Didn't they launch only their first device (considering this is the sixth generation) in the USA a few months ago? Hopefully the replacement parts are yet to come. I'm not sure why it's so difficult, perhaps it's that they're stretched too thin and barely managed to get the base device to market there at all
I bought one a few years ago. Good device, too big for my hands (back then, there were still smaller options so I bought one of those smaller ones in second-hand). Not having spare parts available would make me hesitate since that's like 50% of the point (fair sourcing being the other half), but besides that it's a (big) phone like any other
I bought a fair phone 2 when I lived in Germany in 2016. Got a software update when I moved back to Australia. Bricked it. The kernel debug interface has no standard header, and required a fine pitch soldering iron header. I rented a German post box to send it to, as you need a European address for support. I tried to send it twice, and it was refused by German customs. I gave up and now I just buy cheap second hand Motorolas and unlock the bootloader, put lineageos on them. I think giving new life to discarded devices is more ethical anyway.
Early Fairphones were not necessarily designed for repairability. That is a principle that has emerged significantly in the last few iterations. The FP4 was the first that was really designed and marketed as fully modular from what I remember, and parts are still available.
For the American piece, the FP6 was the first available from OEM in the US.
I still have various spare parts of my fp2: screen, camera, battery. This was in 2015 and it was modular and repairable. For the fp1, it was possible to replace the battery.
When I had a Fairphone 4, regulars on the community forum repeatedly reminded everyone that repairability was not a primary goal of Fairphone, ethical consumerism was, and any longevity and repairability was secondary or coincidental.
Yes, that goes against most of Fairphone's own advertising, but it was consistent with my experience of the phone and discussions on the forum: security updates frequently so far out of date that some software could not be run, flimsy components inconsistent with advertising (yes, the battery was nominally swappable, but the snaps on the back would break easily, and support would claim that it was not intended to be removed regularly), parts that were frequently out of stock, and of course, whole new phone designs every generation rather than Framework-like component upgrades.
It seems like they may have improved since then, but those problems, along with the atrocious security (FP4 used AOSP's public test signing keys, with publicly-available private keys, for its firmware) and sketchiness around specs, standards and openness (especially for the camera), generally turned me off the company.
I love the phone, but I really hate the "ethical" framing of device repairability. This is an engineering problem and we don't need to twist it through a moral framework.
Phones that are repairable have superior engineering, not superior morality.
Surely it's morally superior to limit resource use by using things for longer and repairing them when broken. I often use a weak Kantian Imperative that I couch as "if everyone did what you do would it be good, sustainable?" as a _guide_ to moral choice, it's a starting point really, but from that I think moral superiority of more repairable goods follows.
It’s both superior engineering-wise and morally. The moral framing is probably more popular with folks that don’t care about engineering superiority, too.
Happy FairPhone 4 user here. Running 3+ years, only replaced the battery once. Aim to keep it 7-10 years, barring unforeseen events like theft. Not going to replace it just because a newer model is released.
Someone stole my fairphone 4, then threw it on the ground. So it seems like i'll keep it a while longer
I've been running mine for ~4ish I think, on my third battery and might run out my fourth because it's feeling a _little_ sluggish at times.
I am waiting for the next FP model where I can use a USB-C/dp external display and then I'm all over it.
That's a lot, I usually use old phones from family members, most of them have 4 years of use by the time I get them and I get a whole day of usage from the battery.
Honestly, not sure. I use Firefox Mobile pretty heavily during the day and I suspect it's part of the drain. I'm not too concerned by it and I just try to replace the battery every ~1-1.5 years.
What is happening to your batteries? I'm on something like year 6 on my Redmi and my battery is fine. Am I simply lucky?
I also never had battery issues with my fp4, except it sometimes starts draining really fast. Fix is too charge while phone is shutdown.
I suppose it's a testament to their success, but, I have a fairphone 3 from almost 6 years now, and I'm a bit annoyed that they're basically "sunsetting it" (no more software updates, no more spare parts.)
My fairphone 2 had lasted 5 years, but was completely unusable at the end. My current phone works very well (again, huge kudos to the team if anyone is reading this), and I would not mind trying to reach the decade with it - but in a few months, someone (my bank, a shop, a 2FA, whatever) will ask for an unsupported android feature.
I know people will give me names of exotic non-android distros, but will they run my bank's app :/ ?
I had a similar experience but with the Fairphone 2. I never swapped out any parts because performance hardware upgrades never became available and it was superseded by the Fairphone 3. I've not invested again in a Fairphone since. I've no interest in paying extra for repairability I'm never going to use since they have the same obsolescence/replacement model as any other phone.
OTOH my OnePlus 5T is more than 9 year old now, and still perfectly usable (I changed the battery once).
My previous phone was an OPPO Find X3 Pro phone. Incredible phone. I only changed it because it has no zoom on the cameras. But I used it for 5 years.
The Fairphone 6+ looks really interesting but I'm not seeing it having the ability to wirelessly charge. I exclusively charge my Pixel 10 XL Pro (25w+) phone on a wireless charger now in the car and at my house and really like it, I don't want to go back to plugging in a USBC cable anymore unless it's an emergency. Am I missing something? Does it support Qi 2?
Not an expert, but I recently heard that apparently not everything is perfect in fairphone land: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
GrapheneOS is like a veteran and war zone expert: for them, not only the external environment is considered extremely hostile that you should leave your house only wearing an armor and with bodyguards, but also the internal environment is hostile: your bodyguards could be bribed and work against you, that's why you need to somehow be protected against that as well.
Just as physical security, digital security most of the time not as radical, and tradeoffs are usually accepted, especially when they are "invisible": hardware and software security features are usually not mentioned in the specs and the regular and even power user just don't know most of them and what do they do.
When GrapheneOS says "private" and "secure", they mean top-of-the-line security features, updates as soon as possible, all available mitigations against zero-days and insecure code which will limit the impact before the patch, etc. Security as in a killdozer.
When other say "private" and "secure", most of the time it means: "we've followed all the recommendations applicable to our development budget, device price point, and support life time". Graphene does not like that definition of these words.
For smartphone, chip manufacturer goal is not to protect the user at all costs, but to provide reasonable security features for the price.
BUT the goal of chip manufacturer to protect the device at all costs is for… game consoles! That's why Xbox, PlayStation, Switch all run on a custom silicon and not an ordinary chips!
> That's why Xbox, PlayStation, Switch all run on a custom silicon and not an ordinary chips!
Not really. Xbox and PlayStation both run on pretty standard AMD Zen 2 chips. Somewhat customized, but standard enough that people by binned playstation 5 motherboards to use as computers with normal OS'es (lookup BC-250). The last gen with more customized chips was the PS3/Xbox360 era, when both went with a variant of PowerPC, same as Gamecube/Wii/WiiU.
Switch runs on basically the same Nvidia Tegra CPU/GPU as multiple android tablets.
>but standard enough that people by binned playstation 5 motherboards to use as computers
That doesn't mean that all the features are enabled right from the factory, or that the compatibility with already existing features is lost.
Modern chip's security features are pretty complicated and include hardware patches, hardware debug authentication, multiple provisioning states (and multi-key hierarchy for that), RMA states to clear all the private information, etc.
>Switch runs on basically the same Nvidia Tegra CPU/GPU as multiple android tablets.
Yes, and the one which got cracked with a bootrom vulnerability ;)
That's a pretty working motivation for a chip company to improve their chip security when the company as beefy as Nintendo tells them that their chip is vulnerable they're losing money because the customers can play for free ;). I'm pretty sure patchable bootroms started to be common only after Switch hack.
I think you should listen to bringup of Linux on Playstation talk from CCC to understand that those platforms are much more than just "somewhat customized".
There are whole sections of peripheral chips missing and they behave quite a bit differently with how they bootstrap and where things are mapped in memory.
Peripheral chips, non-standard bootloaders, custom hypervisors and similar is not what people mean when they say "run on a custom silicon".
?
Even Steam Deck has a custom APU made specifically for it. Call it "customized" if you don't like "custom".
>GrapheneOS is like a veteran and war zone expert: for them, not only the external environment is considered extremely hostile that you should leave your house only wearing an armor and with bodyguards, but also the internal environment is hostile: your bodyguards could be bribed and work against you, that's why you need to somehow be protected against that as well.
Yeah, iPhoens are made that way as well. It's just caring about the privacy of your users.
> When GrapheneOS says "private" and "secure", they mean top-of-the-line security features, updates as soon as possible, all available mitigations against zero-days and insecure code which will limit the impact before the patch, etc. Security as in a killdozer.
I think it's deceptive because people think they will get better privacy/security with a /e/ fairphone when it's actually much worse than an iPhone.
iPhone is top-of-the-line as well, because they control the whole software and the whole hardware (starting from basically all the chips). That's very rare in the industry.
There are just a bunch of companies which afford to do the same. Maybe Xiaomi will be the next one.
> people think they will get better privacy/security with a /e/ fairphone when it's actually much worse than an iPhone
Does /e/OS illegally collect users' data for ads and sends a lot of telemetry to their servers like Apple? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
It's amazing how people still fall for the marketing. Apple is an ad company, just like Google. Advertising and data collection is baked into their OS, store, and core apps. They're just trailing behind revenue-wise by a few years.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/adsupport/asidenti...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/11/19/apple-secret-digit...
Privacy and security from what is the question. From big tech or from criminals and governments that take your device and plug it into cellebrite machines?
I for one prefer to be protected from big tech. Sure GrapheneOS does both, but Apple does not.
> I think it's deceptive because people think they will get better privacy/security with a /e/ fairphone when it's actually much worse than an iPhone.
That's just blatantly not true though - even iPhones collect way more telemetry and Ad data than /e/ OSes.
Fairphone makes their fair share of blunders. Software updates are a big issue, especially around the times that critical vulnerabilities need to be patched.
With the hardware I'm not impressed, and on their own forum I've seen plenty of people reporting issues with overheating on the Gen 6. Hopefully kinks have been ironed out on their 6+.
The current CEO also has a persona that would stir up any community (read a few of his AI-gened posts on their blog, if interested of context).
Still holding on to my FP4, but they are not of consideration on my future phone purchase, unless there is some kind of reality check over there and improvements materialize beyond words.
Ultimately, a lot of the “fairness” of the Fairphone is offered by “just buy a really popular manufacturer.”
Everyone and their dog can repair an iPhone because it’s the most popular phone on the planet. Are those repairs accessible to the consumer at home with amateur skills? No, not really. However, newer iPhone models are significantly easier to repair and come along with lower repair costs direct from the manufacturer compared to previous models.
You want years of software updates? Yeah, an iPhone has you covered there, too.
And of course, fairphone’s hardware and OS are nothing to write home about. For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
Who is the Fairphone for exactly? Who is buying it and why?
I think the fairbuds are their best product, but I also imagine AirPods Pro 3 are on a whole different level of sound quality, noise cancelation, voice quality/voice isolation, and firmware/software polish.
And let’s be honest about repairability with tiny earbuds: being able to replace the battery is has such a tiny impact on their footprint. If I have to throw out my AirPods Pro 3 every 5 years due to battery degradation, that’s such an insignificant quantity of material being wasted, so it’s probably worth it to get a better product. I could offset my environmental impact by eating a little less beef or riding my bike instead of driving a few times. You drive 30 miles and that’s an entire gallon of refined petroleum product, how much material and energy is used to make one pair of AirPods? I can’t imagine it’s a lot.
I don’t say any of this to be a big corporate or Apple shill. I am rooting for the little guys. But the little guys need to be realistic. You look at products like the Framework 13 Pro and you can actually say, okay, here’s a product with really legitimate benefits over its incumbent competition. There is a reason to buy this product for a certain buyer. I just don’t see that with Fairphone. I can’t think of a customer profile where that person is getting a better ownership experience with Fairphone products.
I'm not big on this general line on argument, but one point in particular:
> And of course, fairphone’s hardware and OS are nothing to write home about. For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
For the "freedom nerds", FP is one of the only (if not the only?) vendor to have official support for microG-based operating systems, seamless OTA updates and everything included. The Murena e/OS offering in particular is simple enough that the non-nerds that (perhaps less outspokenly) care about freedom can just pick it up with little change in habits.
I guess that’s true, although we could possibly split that camp into two sides: the folks who believe that Play Store sandboxing is going to be more functional, and the folks who prefer microG are willing to accept the issues that come along with it.
To be fair on either side of that debate, getting a phone that comes with /e/OS installed from the factory is going to be easier than flashing GrapheneOS on a Pixel or LineageOS with microG on another device.
> For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
Not quite. The people who care about security first are better off with GOS, yes. However, GOS's threat model very specifically treats the user as a thing to defend against; the freedom-first crowd should avoid them.
isn't the main point of Fairphone to not use conflict minerals?
by using FOSS only myself and hating monopolies like Apple etc., i still pretty much convinced that being "green" or "ethical" is more about participating/volunteering/doing-something towards a better world than off-loading your duty to other companies... one could easily make a point that Apple products despite locked down, are still green (Apple has a bunch of zero-emission and whatever policies) and much more if one uses their devices for a long while. i had a 2° hand iPhone SE 1° gen. till 2021? if stuff breaks despite your not being able to fix it's not like you can't hop into a specialized shop to change batteries or even pay the expensive service Apple offers... sure that allows exploitation and it's always nice to get rid of it, that's why somehow these emerging companies are important and/or policies like the right of repair will make them obsolete
The new Sennheiser earbuds have replaceable batteries too so the fairbuds are no longer unique in that regard. I haven't read comparisons on sound quality though
According to FixIt Fairbuds are the best ones for repairability, not just battery: https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Fairphone_Fairbuds
Do you know how the Sennheiser's compare? I'm looking for some for using at the gym, but wanted something I can easily fix if needed.
The Fairbuds are also quite a bit cheaper
And of course, wired headphones still exist as an alternative for those who really don’t like the battery aspect, and it’s not even terribly inconvenient for phones without a headphone jack.
I suspect that the venn diagram of the kind of person who takes issue with Bluetooth audio batteries and the kind of person willing to use wired headphones or prefers them outright has a lot of overlap.
I have an FP4, and when it'll die, I will just buy an iphone. Security updates are slow, and after the bullshit of the android upgrade, yeah but no.
Seems you have to compromise on HW openness and ethics vs paranoia.
It's paranoia to want ≥ security than an iPhone or stock Pixel?
It depends who you are. If you're Edward Snowden, or even a high ranking politician, it's a sane precaution.
If you're just a rando like me yes, it's paranoia.
I think this has historically been true and is still approximately true now. But I think in the relatively near future (less than 5 years) there's a really good chance it won't be true anymore.
Once open models catch up to the current frontier in vulnerability exploitation, the cost to target people will go way down. In the past, the cost to hack a random individual person was generally high enough that if there wasn't some special reason to hack you in particular, it wasn't worth it. That may no longer be the case in the near future. The floor of what is acceptable security for the General Public probably needs to rise quite a bit over the next few years.
Why would you assume Google, Apple, and defense-oriented agencies like CISA wouldn't also have access to those same models, but using them to fix issues?
Its just raising the bar across the board, I don't see how only attackers would benefit.
Attackers only need to win once, defenders need to win every time. The game is skewed in favor of the attackers, and AI only exarcebates this.
I think it heavily depends. If you are concerned cops or CBP are going to try to take your phone and search it then wanting a phone like GOS is a very reasonable precaution.
Even if you haven't done anything "wrong", you may have engaged in speech or activities that the current US admin has deemed problematic and will try to punish you for if they can find any evidence.
those who give up freedom for security will end up losing both
They generally don't like other projects, they also compare the security to the "Android Open Source Project" as if it's a real thing, AOSP doesn't run on a single phone on earth and as such isn't an option for anybody.
And for the updates I could comment that
> Fairphone 6 with stock OS has very lacking security due to delayed patches (1-2 months for partial backports, much longer for full Android patches)
Is certainly much better than my Samsung flagship
Another day, another instance of GrapheneOS bitching about Fairphone. It's not like any other device meets their ridiculous standards either, and now that Google is closing up Android and delaying patches, neither will their own Motorola whenever they get around to actually making it.
> neither will their own Motorola whenever they get around to actually making it
Source: You made it up
A quick search would basically disprove everything after your first sentence.
It's a reasonable extrapolation of the current state. They want up to date patches, Google is already winding down open support for that, and it'll release in what, a year or two? Basically guaranteed to have outdated security patches on launch or they'll have to start maintaining their own. Might happen, but it seems unlikely they can hack it, as it were.
> A quick search would basically disprove everything after your first sentence.
If this is so simple, you surely can demonstrate it and present the links. Meanwhile there are still no phones acceptable for GrapheneOS except from Google, and it's a known fact that Google is restricting Android step by step:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364745
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47091419
There are devices meeting these basic standards right now, and the entire family of them, no less.
GOS are vocal about safety and security of all the devices, not just seriously insecure Fairphones, and this article is about something different altogether, that's misinformation they've been hit with several times.
Fair criticism is fair, but yours is fabrications.
Criticizing others while only using Google Pixels is such intense hypocrisy that I cannot possibly take them seriously or fairly. Like if someone rolled up in a Ford Raptor rolling coal while selling solar panels or something.
Would be neat if Fairphone would build a real compact smartphone, something with 4" or 5" screen. Current device is too large for human pockets and all those protruding camera bumps and buttons are really uncomfortable.
I've always been a bit curious about Fairphone, but as I only get phones that cost less than $200 (and use them until they physically break), I'll probably never get one.
Still only on my second smartphone, so I'm not worried about producing more e-waste.
Have you considered Pinephone then?
Never heard of that before. A quick search doesn't reveal sufficient documentation to form an opinion. Do you have better resources?
Can't find it for sale in the online shops I usually use (Germany), either.
https://pine64.org/devices/pinephone/
https://pine64.com/product-category/pinephone/https://pine64...
I have one. It's slow but the feeling of owning your hardware is well worth it. Also good software can make it fast, see SXMo.
Great what they are doing - yet I found Shiftphone to be also fair, equally or better repairable and even more open for alternative Operating Systems. I think Fairphone supports 2 OSes officially, Shiftphone has a whole custom ROM list of ~10.
https://www.shift.eco/en/shiftphone-8/
Ten? So like Android and Linux flavors? I'm not sure I even know of ten: e/OS, Calyx, Lineage, Ubuntu Touch, eh is there like Mobian or something still alive... how do they get to ten?? Do they also all fully work? Camera and calling (and not only on 2G) for example?
I'd be interested in the list, the website you've linked is super sparse (the full menu is like shop, some feel-good pages about device deposit and impact, blog, and contact us - no knowledge base, documentation, or somewhere where you'd expect to find OS info or even downloads)
their marketing is really low-key and they must improve it because they have enticing products. OS offers page: https://www.shift.eco/shiftos/
EU regulations already mandate that the batteries should be user-replaceable and other parts easily replaceable. The difference between Fairphone and the competition will narrow in the future.
Except for the fact that Samsung is the 800 pounds gorilla in the smartphone space which you'll know will be around for some time. How long is Fairphone going to last? Maybe the founders want to retire early and sell to the highest bidder.
I'd much rather see them running GrapheneOS or /e/OS on it also.
There’s a get-out clause in the law that allows your battery not to be required to be user replaceable if it can last 1,000 cycles while remaining at 80+%. Apple’s phones certainly meet that these days, and I imagine Samsung’s will as well (though I’m not sure if silicon carbide changes that at all).
> There’s a get-out clause in the law
As all too common
GDPR: "legimate interest"
EU261: "exceptional circumstances", no deadlines for paying compensation etc
yes yes, "no law is perfect" etc..nobody could foresee anything...downvote away
> GDPR: "legimate interest"
It doesn't allow spying though. It allows, e.g., to save your session if you intentionally logged in.
Anyone have any updates on why this device can’t support or get behind Graphene OS? A repairable and secure phone is my desired option for a phone that’s truely mine and I’m sure this is true for many others also.
From my understanding it’s not there as the Graphene team says that fairphone haven’t taken security hardware seriously and there’s key hardware security features missing that means they are not even interested to look at supporting the device.
Keen for latest updates on this, happy to be corrected.
I believe the GrapheneOS team demands, in particular, a security feature called Memory Tagging Extensions (MTE). This feature has a phone's processor attach a "tag" to each memory location saying what's stored there and requires accesses to that memory to bear a matching tag. Buffer overflow type attacks are effectively prevented because a read into the adjoining region having a different tag gets rejected.
This feature is usually NOT present in desktop computers, and has only really been implemented by the Google Pixel hardware so far. It's unclear why it's viewed as being so critically necessary for Graphene: MTE is certainly useful but I personally wouldn't say its absence indicates an "insecure" device, and it imposes both a clear performance (and battery life!) penalty and a significant hardware burden on the SoC manufacturer. It's a pretty significant trade-off.
Anyway, that's the biggest single reason why GrapheneOS devs say "this hardware is not adequately secure": 99% of phone chips are excluded because they do not support MTE.
While yes I am on GrapheneOS' side on these issues, I'm surprised nobody clones the GrapheneOS repo and simply disables the minimal handful of features which block it from working on devices. Maybe calling the clone CarbonOS? If MTE is required to boot GrapheneOS and Fairphones don't have MTE, then Fairphone clones GrapheneOS and disables MTE for its images. Graphene has so many features beyond just hardware security that other Androids lack, that it would be worthwhile to do this and it would still be higher security than the others (even if it's below GrapheneOS' own full security). Sensor & network permissions, storage & contact scopes, autoreboot, scrambled pin, radio auto-off, MAC address randomization, and more, I'm sure don't require MTE or Titan etc. Just follow GrapheneOS as upstream, making sure that the minimal set of changes needed to get it working on other/older devices transfers with the new updates.
> I'm surprised nobody clones the G®apheneOS repo and simply disables the minimal handful of features which block it from working on devices.
I wouldn't recommend that. They would be denounced by GOS (which is just idealism and purism and definitely not bullying – not at all.) Anything which isn't G®apheneOS is by definition technically inferior, wicked, insecure, privacy-invading and should erased from your device immediately.
Lack of MTE is not the only huge reason why the GrapheneOS team refuses most devices. Most vendors' lack of timely bugfixes for device-specific drivers and firmware, and no commitment to keep providing bugfixes for a number of years is another major factor.
Still, a 'degraded' GrapheneOS as my proposed CarbonOS, beats /e/, Lineage, Calyx, and stock. Not doing CarbonOS is throwing the baby (non-hardware hardening and features) out with the bathwater (the lack of hardware hardening). I for one do not wholly rely on Titan and use a long alphanumeric password on my primary profile to ensure BFU disk encryption isn't violated, while living in secondary daily-driver profiles which are PIN protected for ease of use. If I suspect phone seizure becomes a non-infinitesimal possibility, I can just reboot! Additionally, I would love to see an option in GOS that allows me to change the action bound to the panic sequence (5+ rapid presses of power): I would never call police using that sequence, I would 100x rather that sequence cause a shutdown instead. That way if I am asked to hand over my phone I can just panic sequence it as I am removing it from my pocket. As it stands now I would have to pause to interact with the screen to shut it off, significantly increasing the likelihood of the adversary snatching it before I could get it into BFU.
MTE is not the only blocker here. Pixel 7 series do not have it and are currently supported by GrapheneOS. There are other concerns regarding things like a proper secure element implementation and timely firmware/binary blob updates.
Right, but still my CarbonOS idea ('degraded' GrapheneOS) is better than /e/, Lineage, Calyx, and stock. By 'degraded' I mean the minimal changes to current GrapheneOS needed to get it working on a given GrapheneOS-unsupported device.
Someone from GrapheneOS was very active in this thread: [0], here is a response the GrapheneOS person links to themselves: [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49344811
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49355122
The recently released Fairphone 6+ runs on Android 16. I had to look that up on Wikipedia, their website doesn't even clearly state that. Android 16 is 14 months old at the moment. Android 17 was released to manufacturers 6 months ago and had a general release 2 months ago.
So why does a brand new phone run an operating system from over a year ago? Does it really take over 6 months to update a phone to a new version of Android?
How am I supposed to believe a company is committing to supporting a phone for a long time when at release it already runs outdated software?
I am a user. What does Android 17 do for me that 16 doesn't?
Security is the big reason to want 17 over 16, though I believe 16 is getting a lot of those features backported still.
Otherwise, I preferred 16. The UX, AI, and all the other garbage I really could do without. I don't love it. My phone (pixel 9) feels slower and the battery is now draining like crazy.
Getting security updates for issues that are not marked high/critical. These are not your typical RCE, but they are used in exploit chains.
For those not aware, Android Security Bulletins only cover high/critical vulnerabilities. There are also rumors that Google will soon stop fixing vulnerabilities in not-actual versions that were discovered by Google in LLM-driven vulnerability discovery. There was recently a GrapheneOS thread about it.
> Getting security updates for issues that are not marked high/critical. These are not your typical RCE, but they are used in exploit chains.
Aren't those back-ported for a while?
No, they are not.
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114101511604296440
You need new releases or QPRs to get other patches.
Since about 12 or so, it's been a series of cosmetic changes, bugfixes, and "AI" features.
16 is fine if you don’t connect your phone to rhe internet, or use sms.
I belive you are mistaken. Android 17 final was "released" 6-7 weeks ago.
But Google being Google, this release is pretty much useless until Samsung et al deal with all bugs and performance issues, which will take 2-4 months.
As a Linux, macOS and Windows user it’s really strange to me that you can’t just install the latest OS on your device. Even my iPhone updates to the latest version as soon as it’s released.
I dont know. Does your Linux distribution immediately upgrade to the latest kernel when Linus releases a new one?
Besides, the phone software is highly optimised for the specific hardware. It is not a generic software like Windows
Even distros often provide a kernel mainline branch to let you install the latest and greatest kernel in a click.
But there's also nothing to stop you simply building the latest kernel from source and using that - it's pretty easy and it will work fine.
Why though?
Seriously, why can't Android just be installed? Are they building it like the old-timey kernel before modules and embedding drivers in a giant monolith or something ridiculous?
Android is even more modular:
https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/hal
Certification takes time and probably overlaped with the phone development. Fairephone is small compared to e.g. samsung and they describe themself more "stable" and long-term support than bleeding edge.
Even worse: Google actually does four releases releases per year (major and QPRs), of which QPR2 is also provided to OEMs. Only Samsung and GrapheneOS roll out QPR2 releases.
The Android version is clearly displayed in the article.
this is 100% in the hands of the SoC manufacturer.
Android versions are locked to kernel versions, which are locked to binary drivers to run your hardware. there's no way around that and you can't reverse engineer or do anything if you want that SoC vendor to continue to fulfill your orders (which you're already at the bottom of the fulfilment list because of low volumes)
If this were genuinely 100% a Qualcomm limitation, I'd expect every Snapdragon 7s Gen 4 phone to be similarly stuck. But Motorola's Edge 70 Fusion uses the same SoC and was already in Android 17 beta testing in February, and Nothing's Phone (4a) and OnePlus Nord CE 6 are also slated for Android 17. So it seems the SoC isn't inherently preventing Android 17.
it's not that simple
to promise 5 year of security updates your SoC needs to also have that support for that time frame + part of your developmeant/production time (as you can't the last steps of development/production before that chip is released). Lastly you need to add the duration during which you promise the 5 years security updates.
to put it simple for a 5 year guarantee you need ~8 better 10 year support for the SoC, measured from is release date
a lot of phone SoC (which tend to get Android porting priority by their producer) have shorter support. Hence why the fp5 had a SoC from a product line designed for industrial embedded appliances instead of a phone SoC...
but the main reason is likely simpler:
They are relatively small and likely will updated FP5, 6,6+ to Android 16 roughly at the same time to not have to support multiple major Android versions for the same time.
Still as long as Android 15 still gets security this doesn't matter too much. Recent major Android version IMHO often have been more disruptive then helpful. At least for me, but my guess it's this applies widely for the kind of audience which pay more because they plan to actual have the same smartphone in use for more the 3 years ;)
Still as long as Android 15 still gets security this doesn't matter too much.
It does matter, because Android Security Bulletins only contain fixes for high/critical vulnerabilities. But all the other vulnerabilities can be useful in exploit chains. Add to that that ASBs have a three month embargo, but GrapheneOS and Samsung roll all/some patches out before they are in a security bulletin. So phones like the Fairphone have critical/high CVEs have been known for up to three months for anyone that looks.
but the main reason is likely simpler:
I think the main reason is that they do not do most hardware and software development by themselves, it's done by their Chinese ODM T2Mobile, for which Fairphone is probably just another customer.
Everything is at glacial speed. For instance, Android 16 on FP6 has some IPv6 bugs that breaks WiFi connections after a few minutes for a substantial number of their customers [1]. Six months later, they still haven't been able to properly fix it.
[1] The issues itself is probably not restricted to WiFi, it's that some brands of WiFi routers trigger one or more of the condition. One of which is sending a router advertisement with a lifetime of 0 for the IPv6 prefix used by the network. The connection handling code goes in a state where it misses the next prefix advertisement.
That sounds horrible. I can understand why Apple makes their own chips with the practices that these SoC manufacturers are getting away with.
Perhaps the EU can step in and force these SoC companies to change their way of working so that a user can simply install Android 17 with a few clicks regardless of their hardware (to a point). Like how desktop computers work.
Desktop computers work because Intel and AMD provide support to their chips to Windows and Linux, because these chips are used for desktop and servers, and these OS are what their customers use.
Mobile chips are not used for desktop and servers, not used for Windows and Linux. They are used for Android, and that's a 98% of the market. The customers of the chips (the companies which develop devices on the chips) just don't use Windows or Linux, that's why there's no reason for a chip company to support it.
Android does not use desktop/server firmware, desktop/server bootloader, and even desktop/server stock Linux kernel. They have their own Generic Kernel Image with the Android patches on top, strict Google requirements for the booting and working process, etc.
PC operating systems are supplied by third parties that are not part of the computer manufacturer, motherboard or processor vendor. All component manufacturers must write drivers for Windows, certify them with Microsoft, and make sure that their device works properly ideally on any computer. You, the user, buy (or obtain) a copy of the operating system from the operating system company.
The operating system for a appliance (smartphone) comes with the appliance itself (as a bundle), and is supplied by the appliance manufacturer, not by operating system manufacturer. The manufacturer of electronic components does not need to contact the creators of the operating systems, they write a driver for Android kernel (yes, for Android kernel, with all its wakelock subsystems and such in mind) and gives it to the manufacturer of the appliance directly (and sometimes only supplies hardware, and the driver must be made by the manufacturer of the appliance).
SoC vendor (and correcting myself, every componet vendor, such as camera, touch screen, flash controler, etc) must make the drivers available TO YOU to ship to your customers. picking out binary blobs and reusing is what grapheneos does, and ia highly frowned uppon and will get you blacklisted
What they are doing is really great in my opinion. I really hope to see more of this in the future!
Are ya'll really repairing your phones? I replace mine when it can't run Google Maps smoothly anymore.
After 4-5 years, on every phone I've ever had, user interactions begin to lag noticeably. Apps launch much more slowly. Intense graphical apps like maps become frustrating to use. At some point I can't take it anymore and replace the phone, long before its physical parts or battery have worn out.
I've bought new a Google Pixel 7a two years ago, paid for it 400 euros. After 1 year I've dropped it, landed on a corner, screen completely broken, replacement costed screen costed me nearly 120 euros (and was not an original screen, otherwise I would have spent more). Just costs much money because of the fucking fingerprint reader under the screen that why couldn't put it in the back of the phone as they did for many years. Broken it again, fuck it I will not repair it again, with the cost of the repair I may as well buy a new phone.
Then I've decided that is worth either spending money on phones whose replacement parts doesn't cost half of the phone itself, or just buying the cheapest Xiaomi or similar chineese brand phone and when it breaks buy a new one or repair it (funny enough cheap phones are more repairable than expensive ones, so I usually repair them).
Look at the cost of a FP screen replacement, 100 €/chf for the FP4. Mine is going black randomly until I reboot the FP4 one to five times.
I've replaced batteries on Pixel 3 XL and Pixel 6 Pro, both having run GrapheneOS. I use OSMAnd~ with no network permission (except during maps/POI updates). OSMAnd~ shows me where ALPRs are, so I can plan my routes around Flock. :^)
Genuinely, how do you make your phone so slow? I've been using my s10 for 7 years, and besides the minor crack in the corner of the screen from being dropped, and constantly juggling storage because I hoard media, it works as well as it did when it was new.
My family's Pixels have all lasted physically long enough for Google to stop supporting them. My wife was annoyed when I told her she needed a new one because from her perspective there was nothing wrong with her existing one ( lack of security updates is not on her radar.)
I'm typing this from a Galaxy S10 I got in 2020, with Lineage 22 (Android 15) running on it.
For sure it isn't the snappiest, but my only real performance issue is loading gifs on Signal, which takes several seconds for some reason.
Just tried maps now, actually still fairly fine for me.
I am not sure what you are doing to your phone for it to act like that
I had the same experience. Repeatedly. IMO it's the software, not the hardware. The issues always start/get worse with a big update to Android or the main Google apps.
I have a Fairphone 5, chose that mainly because of repairability. :)
Ethical phone maybe only hardware wise, software wise with Google it is far from ethical
Nobody is suggesting Fairphone has also replaced Google/Android re SW/OS. What they've arguably done I'd improve the existing situation - surely that counts for something?
There is also nothing precluding them from dropping Android in the future and putting effort into something like Sailfish OS.
You can run postmarketOS on it, although some features are not supported yet: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_(Gen._6)_(fairp...
Now that Fairphone officially sells phones in the United States, I am likely going to get one specifically because it supports postmarketOS. My Pinephone is so slow that I have never really used it for anything beyond testing.
Reminder that Android is not Linux. The Linux phone experience is completely different from Android. People who utilize distro's like Ubuntu touch or postmarketOS demand that even firmware level binaries are open sourced. GrapheneOS is great, but it's not Linux, and not even close. If we start to confuse the two, we're confronted with the question about Unix, which is shared among both Android and iOS, so you could even say that Android is technically an iPhone. This is obviously wrong but utilizes the same logic as people claiming Android is Linux.
I would love a Fairphone, but no headphone jack is a nonstarter for me. Still blows me away that a company saying they are focused on longevity would get rid of a universal audio interface that we've had for decades. In the article they claim it's to fit other features in, but frankly that's not a believable claim. Other manufacturers manage to get a headphone jack in just fine, without any noticeable downside.
The headphone jack is inside USB-C connector. You can use USB-C-to-3.5mm passive (!) cable to connect your 3.5mm headphones, or you can buy 3.5mm headphones with USB-C audio connection.
There's no additional DAC involved, the analog audio is already on a USB-C pins.
I can't find anything about that in the article or the Fairphone 6 manual. Do you have a source for this?
My main problem with USB-C headphones on my Android phone is how unreliable they are. But if the USB-C port can just pass through an analog audio connection, that should work much better, I expect.
Edit: This feature is apparently deprecated (removed?) in newer versions of the USB spec! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Analog_Audio_Adapter_Acc...
How do you charge your phone while listening to music?
With a charging input + 3.5mm dongle?
https://ae-pic-a1.aliexpress-media.com/kf/Sfa5566c711b14a4aa...
Going from separate ports to one port, when its easy to yank the headphone cord and ruin the usb-c so now you can't charge your phone is great.
I've tried those dongles and they are all a huge hassle compared to just having a headphone jack built in.
Well yes, I agree, but the option is there.
This is always the question, but who does that?
put this on your music device:
https://images.thalia.media/-/BF2000-2000/939d34e30a3d4f6587...
Given how severely that hard requirement restricts your available options, I'd suggest adapting to the USB-C audio world. No, it's not as nice as a headphone jack. But it is a relatively small con to just stick an adapter onto the ends of your 3.5mm devices and replace it a few times a year when it breaks. And yes, you can get a "charge and listen at the same time" adapter.
I absolutely concour about the need of a headphone jack - I do not buy anything without it. So,
> to fit other features in
what exactly, one would ask. If there are tradeoffs, if would be nice if the customers can decide what to have, in a modular product.
At this point headphones with an usb-c connection have become nearly as common as 3.5mm trs ones. Additionally you can permamently hook a small usb-c dac with 3.5mm trs output to the headphones of your choice.
Only issue is some very cheap ones are actually bluetooth headphones in disguise where the usb-c connection only exist to power the bt recepter inside the headphone. I find this completely stupid.
I tried the "jack to USB-C" in the only product I was forced to that needed it: an unthinkable battery drain.
> If there are tradeoffs, if would be nice if the customers can decide what to have, in a modular product.
A "modular product" has tradeoffs in and of itself (such as size, price, water resistance, …), which presumably would not fly for a majority of customers.
Serial is a universal data interface that we've had for decades. Don't need RS232 on my phone though.
Boy it would be nice however.
On that note, I remember reading how some phones were able to use the headphone jack as a serial debug port, which is pretty neat.
https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Serial_debugging/Cable_sc...
The Apple 30-pin connector on the iPod and early iPhones had serial!
That is how your car radio could display the name of the current track.
https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/30-pin_Connector
Is bootloader open and can user install their own OS? If not, then what is the point?
The new $650 Fairphone Gen 6+ is designed both for longevity and easy repairability.
I applaud the concept but to see how well this actually holds up in the real world, let's check the Fairphone web site.
Where are the parts to repair any version prior to Gen 6? I don't see them listed anywhere.
So it would appear that "longevity" is actually pretty limited.
Fairphone 4 (2021) parts: https://www.fairphone.com/shop/category/spare-parts-4?catego...
Fairphone 5 (2023) parts: https://www.fairphone.com/shop/category/spare-parts-4?catego...
Parts for the Fairphone 2 (2015) and Fairphone 3 (2019) aren't available anymore, but I suppose that's not all that surprising after 11 respective 7 years.
Afair, they started running out of some Fairphone 3 spare parts around 2024 and kept the ones they still had for warranty repairs. Source: I own one (and switched to the Fairphone 6 early this year).
Afair, they started running out of some Fairphone 3 spare parts around 2024
So "longevity" is actually about 5 years. Or less if you live in the USA.
https://us.fairphone.com/repairs
presumably longer if they were more popular and repair shops stock up on the parts. I assume most FP users are fairly tech savvy and would just purchase multiple components that are more likely to fail as a just-in-case (much like I do for bearings, headlights, and other small parts for my car)
That's 5 years longer than Apple.
With Apple, you can't repair it yourself, but Apple will repair it for much longer than 5 years.
Not even Fairphone can repair your phone if it's out of parts.
> With Apple, you can't repair it yourself
Generally with Apple, you can: https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair
This is a good point. Ifixit has guides for all the phones, but it reports that none of the replacement parts are actually sold in the United States.
https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Fairphone
Reminds me of the cold steel throwing axe that I bought that specifically has replaceable handles in case you break one. No one actually sells the handles though!
Didn't they launch only their first device (considering this is the sixth generation) in the USA a few months ago? Hopefully the replacement parts are yet to come. I'm not sure why it's so difficult, perhaps it's that they're stretched too thin and barely managed to get the base device to market there at all
I bought one a few years ago. Good device, too big for my hands (back then, there were still smaller options so I bought one of those smaller ones in second-hand). Not having spare parts available would make me hesitate since that's like 50% of the point (fair sourcing being the other half), but besides that it's a (big) phone like any other
I bought a fair phone 2 when I lived in Germany in 2016. Got a software update when I moved back to Australia. Bricked it. The kernel debug interface has no standard header, and required a fine pitch soldering iron header. I rented a German post box to send it to, as you need a European address for support. I tried to send it twice, and it was refused by German customs. I gave up and now I just buy cheap second hand Motorolas and unlock the bootloader, put lineageos on them. I think giving new life to discarded devices is more ethical anyway.
It's in shop --> "all parts" (under the "spare parts" header)
Here are the ones for the fairphone 4: https://www.fairphone.com/shop/category/spare-parts-4?catego...
I however couldn't find the ones for the fairphone 3. The fairphone 4 is from 2021, which is not that old.
So "longevity" is actually about 5 years. Or less if you live in the USA.
Early Fairphones were not necessarily designed for repairability. That is a principle that has emerged significantly in the last few iterations. The FP4 was the first that was really designed and marketed as fully modular from what I remember, and parts are still available.
For the American piece, the FP6 was the first available from OEM in the US.
I still have various spare parts of my fp2: screen, camera, battery. This was in 2015 and it was modular and repairable. For the fp1, it was possible to replace the battery.
The FP 3 was marketed as "you can replace the camera for a better one"
A simple Google search showed they are right here: https://www.fairphone.com/spare-parts
When I had a Fairphone 4, regulars on the community forum repeatedly reminded everyone that repairability was not a primary goal of Fairphone, ethical consumerism was, and any longevity and repairability was secondary or coincidental.
Yes, that goes against most of Fairphone's own advertising, but it was consistent with my experience of the phone and discussions on the forum: security updates frequently so far out of date that some software could not be run, flimsy components inconsistent with advertising (yes, the battery was nominally swappable, but the snaps on the back would break easily, and support would claim that it was not intended to be removed regularly), parts that were frequently out of stock, and of course, whole new phone designs every generation rather than Framework-like component upgrades.
It seems like they may have improved since then, but those problems, along with the atrocious security (FP4 used AOSP's public test signing keys, with publicly-available private keys, for its firmware) and sketchiness around specs, standards and openness (especially for the camera), generally turned me off the company.
I love the phone, but I really hate the "ethical" framing of device repairability. This is an engineering problem and we don't need to twist it through a moral framework.
Phones that are repairable have superior engineering, not superior morality.
Surely it's morally superior to limit resource use by using things for longer and repairing them when broken. I often use a weak Kantian Imperative that I couch as "if everyone did what you do would it be good, sustainable?" as a _guide_ to moral choice, it's a starting point really, but from that I think moral superiority of more repairable goods follows.
It’s both superior engineering-wise and morally. The moral framing is probably more popular with folks that don’t care about engineering superiority, too.