• [deleted]

I don't know if this is still something that is in the works, but I love the idea and have some thoughts and would like to hear what others have to say about it.

It would be cool if the phone has swapable parts. So tech that gets upgraded frequently can be swapped out and upgraded, while keeping the original body of the phone. This could help lower the amount of phones that are trashed and have a positive impact on the environment at the same time. Along with, me personally liking the idea of never getting a new phone if I don't have to.

If a counter argument to this would be that profits would be lowered, a solution could be something like a subscription. I know the project is non-profit, so this might not even be a concern, but to those that will use money as a counter argument, this would be my idea. So, something like a low cost initial phone price with a subscription implemented after. This could be immediately after purchase or 'x' amount of years. Or no initial phone price and a subscription-based payment over the lifetime of the product usage. Which could be set at a lower price since the duration of usage will most likely be over a longer period. With being and staying non-profit and done based on donations, I feel the flexibility to do a pricing scheme like this is a unique position they can be in. Not to mention a new pricing strategy like this for a smartphone could be incredibly attractive towards the general public. So it would be its own marketing.

I'd like to hear what other ideas people have, assuming GOS is still looking into this as a project. If not, then this can be disregarded. I just really loved the idea when I heard it might be a possibility.

I don't know what to tag it, so if it is incorrect, I apologize.

Realistically the resource drain and hidden costs of getting a consumer-ready phone into people's hands are massive (tip of the iceberg for mainstream Android covered partially in https://www.esper.io/blog/build-android-phone-with-gms & https://www.esper.io/blog/testing-certifying-android-phone-podcast).

It is hopeful to expect a hardware company/organisation to prioritise enough to have a chance of putting out a good usable device. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a much smaller organisation with a different (but equally important) focus to deliver something they would then be happy with.

If a counter argument to this would be that profits would be lowered, a solution could be something like a subscription.

Recently of note, Fairphone recently decided to stop their subscription service on account of poor adoption: https://www.fairphone.com/en/2024/03/06/were-stopping-fairphone-easy-for-now/. Further in the past, Google/Motorola had Project Ara https://web.archive.org/web/20170821151058/http://atap.google.com/ara cancelled reportedly due to how costly and compromised the idea would have been to implement https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-smartphone-idUSKCN11806C/.

    It's always subscriptions with you kids

      • [deleted]

      Pacienco
      Thank you for this. That is unfortunate. Though Fairphone isn't exactly like GOS, so you never know.

      • [deleted]

      Roger
      Not exactly a kid, but ok. And no I don't like subscriptions, I was considering options that might make the effort worth while. Come up with a better response that is actually helpful.

        This video is about the Fairphone history and shows the difficulty and expenses that come with such environmentally friendly phones. Not that I endorse Fairphone, their update and security track record is underwhelming (which is not well reflected in the video or the public eye). It just shows that the concept, as honorable as it might be, is much harder to accomplish in a world of cheap devices built with child labor and exploitation in mind... Most people won't hand over the money it would cost to produce a modular and secure phone...

        Honestly, I'm good if GOS focuses on their unique ability which is a no compromise secure OS. As long as other companies create sufficiently secure hardware, it's not worth investing resources. Especially with Google having so much more money, infrastructure, established supply chains and scale, it's much easier to just take advantage of that.