Campaign - the 10-year-phone

Regain your privacy! Adopt /e/ the unGoogled mobile OS and online servicesphone


Nit: to empower the individual it is necessary to empower the state as well, unless you would live out of the nation-state political order.

I graciously accept the nit, but would respectfully disagree. However, this open forum is not the place for such a discussion.

For those looking for permission from / mandate of a government to create a “10 year phone”, I wish well. Thankfully we don’t (currently) need a campaign/permission to create a “de-Googled” mobile OS.

Best regards,


1 Like

…maybe not the permission, but a favorable legal framework pushing mainstream on this track could be pretty helpful.


Respectfully @ralxx “Key demands” doesn’t sound limited to just a favorable legal framework to me: Key demands of the letter

What legal framework doesn’t exist today that currently prohibits alternative device manufacturers such as Fairphone or Teracube from creating a “10-year device” today?

As I said, those wishing for a government to create additional mandates for device manufacturers under the guise of protecting the public can have at it- just be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

Thanks for the discussion and best regards,


Sorry for being quite sticky here, but you would have explained on what ground you claimed your opinion to begin with, in the first reply. Expressing your own opinion is free but providing the rational ground together would have been better.


1 Like

I have already been warned about expressing that opinion, as it has been hidden from view from others by forum moderation. If you would like, PM me to continue the discussion.

It is a fact today that business models of most phone manufacturers are based on quick turn-overs. Especially as the degree of innovation/profound further development of devices as we could observe 5 or 10 years back is over, especially since the global phone markets have reached a certain saturation, manufactures are having increased interest that phones do not last too long (in order to be able to sell new ones). I do not want to accuse any particular manufacturer of acting in this way, but particularly in such a context it makes sense (at least from the manufacturers side) to make reparation as complicated and expensive as possible, to glue-in batteries and make devices in a way that ideally nobody (at least no end user) even attempts to open them for refurbishment. For the same reason (I cannot imagine any other), the very most expensive, top-notch phones got even barely 3 years software update/grades.
Wen you see on the other hand side - that’s a joke for €1k devices that could easily last half a decade or even much longer and that would be actually be useful for such a time span.

When you see on the other hand side the needs to reduce carbon emission globally and drastically, we should not afford to waste all the prestigious resources linked to a cell phone (getting together raw materials, transport them manufacture and deliver phones across the world and using a lot of energy for that, only to throw them away, breaking them up by using even more energy to reuse some parts and to crap all the rest).

This is waste, this is horrible and this needs to stop.

We could - of course - hope that the market deals with this all alone, hope that niche manufacturers (and there are some) become more important in terms of market shares.

But we could say are well: There is a rethinking that should take place more quickly and we (the society, the government) should build guard rails that set a new direction - for instance for this market segment. A context like this would help manufacturers to develop much easier new or adapted (viable) business models for themselves.

I do not want to defend the manifesto and I am even not sure if this approach is a promising and sufficiently target-oriented one.

But the right to repair, removable batteries, the right for spare parts, 10-year software updates - all those are not excessive demands, all those demands are (technically) easily feasible. And in some parts of the world there are corresponding legal frameworks coming up (like the Ecodesign Directive in Europe, or the right to repair in France). They are probably far from being perfect. that’s why I think we should keep on challenging our legislators even a bit more (that’s how I understand the campaign) - personally that’s a pathway that I support and that’s why I posted the list above last week.

@mcmd I hope these lines helped clarifying the issue for you as well.


This topic was automatically closed after 15 days. New replies are no longer allowed.