If you’d pay more if the specs were more current, it means freedom from Google isn’t worth that much to you :) It’s okay, to each his own. I’d accept worse specs than that phone at a higher price to escape Google myself.
As for the phone becoming deprecated more quickly, you’re thinking this like if it were a throwaway device. This would be a concern with non-repairable phones, but the whole point of this device is to remain usable well past its planned obscolescence date. As long as the main board doesn’t die, Fairphone will supply spares for all the other components for years to come. I just made sure I chose the Fairphone 4 with the most RAM and flash to have as much room as possible for future upgrades. But even if it stops being able to accept new Android versions, that won’t stop it from working.
Besides, like I said, I have the means to buy another one if it dies. Escaping Google is that important to me. But I don’t want to replace the Fairphone if I can avoid it for the environment, and because I don’t like throwing away things that can be serviced.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t being judgmental. I can well understand that people don’t want to pay through the nose for the privilege of escaping a problem Google has created and not them. In fact, NOBODY should have to pay a cent more to preserve their privacy, nor should sustainability and right to repair be an option that costs extra either. I understand where you’re coming from.
But it’s not the case. Sadly, there are sacrifices to make to restore what was normal only 20 years ago - financial, and in terms of convenience. I’m willing to make extreme sacrifices to keep the corporate surveillance collective at bay and defeat planned obsolescence as much as possible, because those are my pet peeves. They may not be yours and you may have a lower tolerance for the differential treatment imposed to those who don’t want to go with the flow. It’s understandable.
Please don’t take what I said the wrong way. I meant no disrespect.
If you’d pay more if the specs were more current, it means freedom from Google isn’t worth that much to you :) It’s okay, to each his own. I’d accept worse specs than that phone at a higher price to escape Google myself.
As for the phone becoming deprecated more quickly, you’re thinking this like if it were a throwaway device. This would be a concern with non-repairable phones, but the whole point of this device is to remain usable well past its planned obscolescence date. As long as the main board doesn’t die, Fairphone will supply spares for all the other components for years to come. I just made sure I chose the Fairphone 4 with the most RAM and flash to have as much room as possible for future upgrades. But even if it stops being able to accept new Android versions, that won’t stop it from working.
Besides, like I said, I have the means to buy another one if it dies. Escaping Google is that important to me. But I don’t want to replace the Fairphone if I can avoid it for the environment, and because I don’t like throwing away things that can be serviced.
Is that what it means?
Just to be clear, I wasn’t being judgmental. I can well understand that people don’t want to pay through the nose for the privilege of escaping a problem Google has created and not them. In fact, NOBODY should have to pay a cent more to preserve their privacy, nor should sustainability and right to repair be an option that costs extra either. I understand where you’re coming from.
But it’s not the case. Sadly, there are sacrifices to make to restore what was normal only 20 years ago - financial, and in terms of convenience. I’m willing to make extreme sacrifices to keep the corporate surveillance collective at bay and defeat planned obsolescence as much as possible, because those are my pet peeves. They may not be yours and you may have a lower tolerance for the differential treatment imposed to those who don’t want to go with the flow. It’s understandable.
Please don’t take what I said the wrong way. I meant no disrespect.