This, and in terms of repairability/sustainability, it’s hard to make an “everything device” and do it well. Every time you think you got all user requirements covered, another user comes around the corner with a new set of hyper-specific requirements, and you’re back at square one figuring out supply chains and design fundamentals. If your aim is to make something repairable and sustainable that is hard to make that way, it’s much more feasible to just make two separate devices.
They also take in consideration whether the chips can be produced with fairly paid labour (to a certain level). I believe they have once stated that this was an important reason not to use some chips.
FP doesn’t need a flagship. There is only one line. That’s the flagship. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it.
This, and in terms of repairability/sustainability, it’s hard to make an “everything device” and do it well. Every time you think you got all user requirements covered, another user comes around the corner with a new set of hyper-specific requirements, and you’re back at square one figuring out supply chains and design fundamentals. If your aim is to make something repairable and sustainable that is hard to make that way, it’s much more feasible to just make two separate devices.
They also take in consideration whether the chips can be produced with fairly paid labour (to a certain level). I believe they have once stated that this was an important reason not to use some chips.
Well yes, that’s the reasoning I suppose. Some won’t like it, and won’t buy it.
So maybe it’s wise to diversify. I don’t know, I’m not an economist
Right, and so anyone who wants an actual flagship phone should skip Fairphone because they’re not going to like it. I’m glad we agree.