Many things. For example, in this design nothing prevents me from using a battery with twice the capacity (and thickness) as the format is standardized it easier to find the battery you want and a back cover to accommodate the extra volume. I can put a more advanced camera than would be economically viable to a mass-produced mobile phone, I can put additional devices that do not exist in a common cellphone only specifying that such devices have the same format as one of several device slots. It's like being able to mount your phone as if it were a personal desktop computer.
All these things would be practical if the entire cellphone industry got on board with the "modular" concept.
However, the chance of that happening is essentially less than zero; because not only will the rest of the cellphone OEMs not come anywhere near this idea (nor will any third parties jump in); but Fairfield themselves will quickly go out of business, stranding their vict... er, customers with whatever hardware modules they happen to have.
The point is not just that the phone is easier to repair. Fairphone included an interface that links with the back cover. This way the phone can be extended by changing the cover for one with, for example, an NFC chip.
The point of the Fairphone is that they strife to minimalise slave labor in the product and use materials that are better for the environment or can be recycled.
Also, if you can't open the phone: if it is broken, you have to replace it.
Fairphone tries to create a phone that is more durable and usable for a longer period of time (not just two years). If you want a better camera after two years, that is probably possible by replacing the camera module with a better one.
So they are trying to break the throw-away culture and improve the world a little bit:-)
And just how much do you think that "better camera" will be?
My Spidey Sense says that it will be about 2/3 the cost of replacing an entire "sealed" phone. For one thing, this is a VERY "niche" product; therefore the economies of scale (or lack thereof) will be working against the consumer that buys into this product. Second, the individual modules will have to cost more than the component-level parts they replace, if for no other reason than to pay for the mold design for the housings for each "module", and the cost of the ancillary components that will likely be replaced along with that camera, memory module, etc.
This sounds like something a 12 year old kid would dream up, not a serious product engineering team.
They're pretty much stuck with having a power cable, but if routine wireless charging becomes viable I expect your phone will be a completely sealed unit in hardware, software and ecosystem as fast as the likes of Apple can get it there.
Why drag Apple into this? Just to get a cheap dig in?
Personally, I'd find it attractive just for having a removable (and therefore also replaceable) battery, which is something a lot of the recent generation of smartphones don't have. Batteries for mobile devices degrade over time.
Although that is definitely the case with cheap-ass batteries and cheap-ass charging circuits built into cheap-ass phones, and I am sure that there is some sort of measurable decrease in life in any secondary battery over time, in my experience with iOS devices (iPhone 4s, iPhone 6 plus, and iPad 2), not one of them has shown any apparent loss in battery life over the time I have had them. Even my iPad 2 still delivers at least 10 hours of typical browsing/email use, and I use it almost that much every single day, which means it has gone through about 1200 or more full charge/discharge cycles. If the capacity has reduced over time, I haven't been able to detect it.
My cordless telephone, OTOH, has burned-through 2 battery packs already, and starts showing signs of wearout after only about 6 months.
So, it depends more on the quality of the battery and charging circuit than amount of actual use. Treat a Lithium Polymer battery well, and it will have a truly astonishing service life, without significant "fade" over time.
Yes. They even still make phones. They released a couple of new BlackBerry models (the Passport and the Classic) last year, though those phones may be the last classic BlackBerry phones. They recently announced a new phone, Priv, which is based on Android with added BlackBerry services and security software. (According to Engadget it will start shipping on November 16 - http://www.engadget.com/2015/1... )
The comment was actually intended as a joke; however, if their new phones are based on Android, then they are a Joke. See this, and other similar articles regarding Android's "Security".
If Google's solution is not at least partially hardware-based, then it is only a partial solution, which is tantamount to Security Theatre.
That's not my reading of the situation. The benefit of Android is that it will run on many different devices. The drawbacks of Android is that it has to run on many different devices. Some Android devices have all the hardware in place to implement full encryption. Some already have. But since Google cannot dictate what hardware runs on Android, it can only dictate minimums.
Ok, then I will revise my comment to read "On Devices which do not provide for some hardware security component with keys that are unknown and unreadable except within said security component (e.g., Apple's Security Enclave), Google's approach is tantamount to Security Theatre; because said methods are at least potentially compromise-able through legal process or "rubber-hose" crypto-analysis techniques."
firstly, it's debateable whether android is less secure than ios. ios has had many many times as many CVEs over the years than Android has had.
Your criticism of Android and Google has little to do with Android and Google. Phones where the carriers let you flash the OS are the exceptions, not the rule.
And yet, curiously, none have them have actually been exploited as far as I know.
Yes, I am sure the NSA watches the CVE postings very carefully (most of them are probably old news to them anyway), but the NSA isn't every stupid local LE. Their methods are simply nothing compared with what the NSA can do.
OTOH, most of us are like the buzzing of flies to the NSA. Not saying what they do is right (because it isn't); but generally, they really do have bigger fish to fry.
If I understand correctly, Google has a set of conditions that manufacturers must meet to be able to ship Google apps with their phone. One of the conditions that Google should be forcing RIGHT NOW is that manufacturers (and carriers) must provide a mechanism to allow updating the operating system (or to replace it entirely).
This.
I have been saying this same thing for years now, everytime some Fandroid makes an excuse that it isn't Google's fault that Android phones never (for nearly all values of "never") get Security Updates.
Google certainly has enough clout with the OEMs and Carriers to enforce more reasonable Update policies; but they just. Don't.
Why?
Because ultimately, they simply don't give a shit.
I suspect also that Apple and Google don't want to be responsible any more for law enforcement duties. I can only imagine how many requests they get every week to break into someone's phone. Now they can legitimately say that they can't do it.
Sure, I mean, what are the chances that the DoJ would collude with the NSA to keep secret surveillance secret? The DoJ is there to protect us from the excesses of the NSA, right?
...and what about the rest of my argument, that you so disingenuously ignored?
And when told "yes" and given evidence to this fact you still persist with your "what if" game. Clearly you are not interested in the answer unless it is "no" and will be unlikely to believe anything else. Your cognitive bias is getting in your way here.
Personally, I think it has more to do with his IQ score, and less to do with Cognitive Bias.
Likewise, I wonder how secure Apple's encryption is -- their very public fight against the DoJ could just be a smokescreen to hide the fact that the government can trivially crack the phones, they just don't want anyone to know. Their fight against the DoJ brings this quote to mind: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I'm sure the Government is going to get two branches to collude, plus Apple's counsel, all to bolster Apple's iOS sales, when everyone on Slashdot keeps saying that Android is the dominant platform, and that Apple isn't used by anyone but clueless morons with too much spendable cash and teenage girls wanting an iFashion Accessory.
Afterall, if you're a Terrist, why get an iPhone that all-but-requires an Apple ID, when you can get a "burner" Android phone for free, or nearly free, at every Mom and Pop "Cellular Phone Shack" in the world?
Slashdot wisdom (and real wisdom) handily defeats the "logic" of your argument, you ignorant slut.
As per the post earlier today, Apple said it was "impossible" for them to access the files on a customer's iPhone if they had a newer phone. In essence, what Apple is saying is that if law enforcement brings them only the phone of a suspect, Apple cannot technically access the files on the phone without the help of the phone's owner. They did it using a number of processes including full data storage encryption. I suspect that it has been optional on Android since not all devices had the all the hardware pieces in place to secure the phone completely.
And since part of Apple's solution is hardware-based (and this is the reason that their "can't decrypt" statement does not apply to iPhones prior to either the 5 or 4s) or to phones running earlier to iOS 8 (I believe).
If Google's solution is not at least partially hardware-based, then it is only a partial solution, which is tantamount to Security Theatre.
Not that it matters, because most existing Android phones will never see Android 6.0, anyway.
Apple was required to make this statement after it was issued with a FISA warrant. In reality Apple can decrypt these devices but the government doesn't want users avoiding Apple devices or using there own encryption.
Ad free *for now*.
You know what else charged you money to be ad-free?
Cable TV. You'd pay a fee and there'd be no ads.
Anyone remember just how long *that* lasted?
Let's be real honest here.
Youtube wants to charge us 10$ a month to give us what they used to give us for free.
The ads won't be far behind, just more targeted thanks to subscription.
Exactly!
I have talked about the "Remember when Cable TV didn't have ads "Because that's why you pay for it" with several friends old enough to remember when. No one has a good explanation except "greed" as to why that changed.
But speaking of RedTube, or YouRed, or whatever it's called: Why are iOS users being dissed in the pricing model? Did Apple give Google the middle finger when they came calling, asking for a license fee or somesuch?
Anybody have a rational explanation for this? Does this mean I soon won't be able to stream YouTube videos on my Macs and iOS devices; or that I will be forced to suffer longer and/or more Ads?
I guess Google needs to change its catchphrase to "Be as Evil as Possible".
Reminds me of an old skit (don't remember if it was SNL or MadTV) where they were parodying MSNBC at the time with more and more overlays appearing on screen, at one point a newsreader stops and says "Can we get The Terminator on here as well" and then continues reading the news with a giant overlay of the T-800 obscuring most of him.
It was SNL. The sketch was called MSNBC News Force. I remember the sketch vividly. It was hysterical. Here it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Many things. For example, in this design nothing prevents me from using a battery with twice the capacity (and thickness) as the format is standardized it easier to find the battery you want and a back cover to accommodate the extra volume. I can put a more advanced camera than would be economically viable to a mass-produced mobile phone, I can put additional devices that do not exist in a common cellphone only specifying that such devices have the same format as one of several device slots. It's like being able to mount your phone as if it were a personal desktop computer.
All these things would be practical if the entire cellphone industry got on board with the "modular" concept.
However, the chance of that happening is essentially less than zero; because not only will the rest of the cellphone OEMs not come anywhere near this idea (nor will any third parties jump in); but Fairfield themselves will quickly go out of business, stranding their vict... er, customers with whatever hardware modules they happen to have.
The article even closes by saying it's unlikely that modules will be compatible with future generations of Fairphones.
So it's fraud, pure and simple.
The point is not just that the phone is easier to repair. Fairphone included an interface that links with the back cover. This way the phone can be extended by changing the cover for one with, for example, an NFC chip.
The point of the Fairphone is that they strife to minimalise slave labor in the product and use materials that are better for the environment or can be recycled.
Also, if you can't open the phone: if it is broken, you have to replace it.
Fairphone tries to create a phone that is more durable and usable for a longer period of time (not just two years). If you want a better camera after two years, that is probably possible by replacing the camera module with a better one.
So they are trying to break the throw-away culture and improve the world a little bit :-)
And just how much do you think that "better camera" will be?
My Spidey Sense says that it will be about 2/3 the cost of replacing an entire "sealed" phone. For one thing, this is a VERY "niche" product; therefore the economies of scale (or lack thereof) will be working against the consumer that buys into this product. Second, the individual modules will have to cost more than the component-level parts they replace, if for no other reason than to pay for the mold design for the housings for each "module", and the cost of the ancillary components that will likely be replaced along with that camera, memory module, etc.
This sounds like something a 12 year old kid would dream up, not a serious product engineering team.
They're pretty much stuck with having a power cable, but if routine wireless charging becomes viable I expect your phone will be a completely sealed unit in hardware, software and ecosystem as fast as the likes of Apple can get it there.
Why drag Apple into this? Just to get a cheap dig in?
Grow up, hater.
Personally, I'd find it attractive just for having a removable (and therefore also replaceable) battery, which is something a lot of the recent generation of smartphones don't have. Batteries for mobile devices degrade over time.
Although that is definitely the case with cheap-ass batteries and cheap-ass charging circuits built into cheap-ass phones, and I am sure that there is some sort of measurable decrease in life in any secondary battery over time, in my experience with iOS devices (iPhone 4s, iPhone 6 plus, and iPad 2), not one of them has shown any apparent loss in battery life over the time I have had them. Even my iPad 2 still delivers at least 10 hours of typical browsing/email use, and I use it almost that much every single day, which means it has gone through about 1200 or more full charge/discharge cycles. If the capacity has reduced over time, I haven't been able to detect it.
My cordless telephone, OTOH, has burned-through 2 battery packs already, and starts showing signs of wearout after only about 6 months.
So, it depends more on the quality of the battery and charging circuit than amount of actual use. Treat a Lithium Polymer battery well, and it will have a truly astonishing service life, without significant "fade" over time.
Yes. They even still make phones. They released a couple of new BlackBerry models (the Passport and the Classic) last year, though those phones may be the last classic BlackBerry phones. They recently announced a new phone, Priv, which is based on Android with added BlackBerry services and security software. (According to Engadget it will start shipping on November 16 - http://www.engadget.com/2015/1... )
The comment was actually intended as a joke; however, if their new phones are based on Android, then they are a Joke. See this, and other similar articles regarding Android's "Security".
If Google's solution is not at least partially hardware-based, then it is only a partial solution, which is tantamount to Security Theatre.
That's not my reading of the situation. The benefit of Android is that it will run on many different devices. The drawbacks of Android is that it has to run on many different devices. Some Android devices have all the hardware in place to implement full encryption. Some already have. But since Google cannot dictate what hardware runs on Android, it can only dictate minimums.
Ok, then I will revise my comment to read "On Devices which do not provide for some hardware security component with keys that are unknown and unreadable except within said security component (e.g., Apple's Security Enclave), Google's approach is tantamount to Security Theatre; because said methods are at least potentially compromise-able through legal process or "rubber-hose" crypto-analysis techniques."
There, is that precise enough for ya?
firstly, it's debateable whether android is less secure than ios. ios has had many many times as many CVEs over the years than Android has had.
Your criticism of Android and Google has little to do with Android and Google. Phones where the carriers let you flash the OS are the exceptions, not the rule.
And yet, curiously, none have them have actually been exploited as far as I know.
Yes, I am sure the NSA watches the CVE postings very carefully (most of them are probably old news to them anyway), but the NSA isn't every stupid local LE. Their methods are simply nothing compared with what the NSA can do.
OTOH, most of us are like the buzzing of flies to the NSA. Not saying what they do is right (because it isn't); but generally, they really do have bigger fish to fry.
If I understand correctly, Google has a set of conditions that manufacturers must meet to be able to ship Google apps with their phone. One of the conditions that Google should be forcing RIGHT NOW is that manufacturers (and carriers) must provide a mechanism to allow updating the operating system (or to replace it entirely).
This.
I have been saying this same thing for years now, everytime some Fandroid makes an excuse that it isn't Google's fault that Android phones never (for nearly all values of "never") get Security Updates.
Google certainly has enough clout with the OEMs and Carriers to enforce more reasonable Update policies; but they just. Don't.
Why?
Because ultimately, they simply don't give a shit.
Most news stories I've seen about Google doing something good have been spun into stories about Google being evil.
Welcome to the world of Apple News on Slashdot; where this exact form of yellow journalism has been practiced for over a Decade.
Slashdot's just now applying the same form of Editorialism with Google.
I suspect also that Apple and Google don't want to be responsible any more for law enforcement duties. I can only imagine how many requests they get every week to break into someone's phone. Now they can legitimately say that they can't do it.
Exactly.
Sure, I mean, what are the chances that the DoJ would collude with the NSA to keep secret surveillance secret? The DoJ is there to protect us from the excesses of the NSA, right?
...and what about the rest of my argument, that you so disingenuously ignored?
You have rage issues.
And you are an Anonymous COWARD, COWARD.
FOAD
And when told "yes" and given evidence to this fact you still persist with your "what if" game. Clearly you are not interested in the answer unless it is "no" and will be unlikely to believe anything else. Your cognitive bias is getting in your way here.
Personally, I think it has more to do with his IQ score, and less to do with Cognitive Bias.
Likewise, I wonder how secure Apple's encryption is -- their very public fight against the DoJ could just be a smokescreen to hide the fact that the government can trivially crack the phones, they just don't want anyone to know. Their fight against the DoJ brings this quote to mind: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I'm sure the Government is going to get two branches to collude, plus Apple's counsel, all to bolster Apple's iOS sales, when everyone on Slashdot keeps saying that Android is the dominant platform, and that Apple isn't used by anyone but clueless morons with too much spendable cash and teenage girls wanting an iFashion Accessory.
Afterall, if you're a Terrist, why get an iPhone that all-but-requires an Apple ID, when you can get a "burner" Android phone for free, or nearly free, at every Mom and Pop "Cellular Phone Shack" in the world?
Slashdot wisdom (and real wisdom) handily defeats the "logic" of your argument, you ignorant slut.
I don't trust companies that they don't have access to their on encrypted datas if they (creat/mad)e them. How did they develop and test them then?
You are a well and proper idiot, idiot.
As per the post earlier today, Apple said it was "impossible" for them to access the files on a customer's iPhone if they had a newer phone. In essence, what Apple is saying is that if law enforcement brings them only the phone of a suspect, Apple cannot technically access the files on the phone without the help of the phone's owner. They did it using a number of processes including full data storage encryption. I suspect that it has been optional on Android since not all devices had the all the hardware pieces in place to secure the phone completely.
And since part of Apple's solution is hardware-based (and this is the reason that their "can't decrypt" statement does not apply to iPhones prior to either the 5 or 4s) or to phones running earlier to iOS 8 (I believe).
If Google's solution is not at least partially hardware-based, then it is only a partial solution, which is tantamount to Security Theatre.
Not that it matters, because most existing Android phones will never see Android 6.0, anyway.
Apple was required to make this statement after it was issued with a FISA warrant. In reality Apple can decrypt these devices but the government doesn't want users avoiding Apple devices or using there own encryption.
Prove it, or STFU.
You mean Blackberry.
Are they still in business?
It's relevant to a discussion of the relative value of the Surface PRO. And the macbook pro can't be used with a pressure sensitive stylus.
And yet another irrelevant comment.
Ad free *for now*. You know what else charged you money to be ad-free? Cable TV. You'd pay a fee and there'd be no ads.
Anyone remember just how long *that* lasted?
Let's be real honest here. Youtube wants to charge us 10$ a month to give us what they used to give us for free. The ads won't be far behind, just more targeted thanks to subscription.
Exactly!
I have talked about the "Remember when Cable TV didn't have ads "Because that's why you pay for it" with several friends old enough to remember when. No one has a good explanation except "greed" as to why that changed.
But speaking of RedTube, or YouRed, or whatever it's called: Why are iOS users being dissed in the pricing model? Did Apple give Google the middle finger when they came calling, asking for a license fee or somesuch?
Anybody have a rational explanation for this? Does this mean I soon won't be able to stream YouTube videos on my Macs and iOS devices; or that I will be forced to suffer longer and/or more Ads?
I guess Google needs to change its catchphrase to "Be as Evil as Possible".
Reminds me of an old skit (don't remember if it was SNL or MadTV) where they were parodying MSNBC at the time with more and more overlays appearing on screen, at one point a newsreader stops and says "Can we get The Terminator on here as well" and then continues reading the news with a giant overlay of the T-800 obscuring most of him.
It was SNL. The sketch was called MSNBC News Force. I remember the sketch vividly. It was hysterical. Here it is.
Also it works with the full version of Photoshop, something you can't do with Apple tablets.
He was comparing it to a MacBook Pro, which is a full-blown Laptop. Your comment is irrelevant.
So you don't use Google products then? Or apple?
Guess you like to live on the edge and run some random Linux flavor of the month? Good for you!
Leave Apple out of this. They simply don't do that shit, period. Or don't you read?
Prove me wrong, or STFU, COWARD.
Whole lotta conjecture going on in this comment thread with very little substance to back it up...
You must be new here.