Fairphone: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Links) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
=OSE Assessment= | =OSE Assessment= | ||
*Fairphone scores a middle score on the [[OSE Specifications | *Fairphone scores approximately 50% - a middle score on the [[OSE Specifications Metric]]. | ||
*Main pros: open source software (not completely), fair trade components, longer lifetime, replaceable components. | *Main pros: open source software (not completely), fair trade components, longer lifetime, replaceable components. | ||
*Main cons: closed hardware design, not distributive enterprise, high cost. Low recursion level, such as not using MLCC instead of tantalum to avoid Congo all together. | *Main cons: closed hardware design, not distributive enterprise, high cost. Low recursion level, such as not using MLCC [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13985042] instead of tantalum to avoid Congo all together. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:13, 17 April 2019
Highlights:
- Fair trade tantalum, tin, gold working directly with certified mines in the Congo, Zaire, and Peru.
- Replaceable parts
- High cost
- Closed hardware
- Open software
Links
- Modular smarphone on Wikipedia - [1]
- Modular libre laptop - EOMA68
- Forksand - libre laptop by Jeff Moe of Lulzbot
OSE Assessment
- Fairphone scores approximately 50% - a middle score on the OSE Specifications Metric.
- Main pros: open source software (not completely), fair trade components, longer lifetime, replaceable components.
- Main cons: closed hardware design, not distributive enterprise, high cost. Low recursion level, such as not using MLCC [2] instead of tantalum to avoid Congo all together.