4 ms·

It's hard to believe that this is genuine. I believe that Fairphone is better than many other companies when it comes to pushing consumerism, but in the end the

• luplex 3y ago
  I tend to agree. For-profit companies can only argue against consumerism as a marketing strategy. But Fairphone has been consistently putting this topic on the table and raising awareness anyways, and they have created more sustainable supply chain options that other companies could now also use.
  • shafyy 3y ago
    For sure. There are better and there are worse companies in this regard. But would Fairphone stop their customers from buying a new Fairphone every few years? And what about themselves releasing a new model every years, just like the critize others to do in this post? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone
    • richiebful1 3y ago
      The fairphone has had a lot of catching up to do on feature-parity with other smartphones. If they have to iterate to expand the market for sustainable phones, that's understandable
      • shafyy 3y ago
        Of course it's understandable and it's good that they exist and expand. My only criticism is that they shouldn't act as if they don't also profit from customers buying a new phone every other year.
• fsflover 3y ago
  > Companies might start out with the right motivation, but as long as their financial and social incentives are not aligned, the financial incentives will win every time. Maybe you could be interested in Purism, which is a Social Purpose Corporation: https://puri.sm/about https://puri.sm/about.
• projektfu 3y ago
  Of course that's true, but it is also a tautology. Lada existed because there was demand for cars in the Soviet Union and they met some of that demand. With more efficient production and advertising to juice demand, it could have been as big as GM. However, it also functioned with its lower production level. Patagonia existed when they made mostly pitons and they existed when they were a niche brand and they exist as a major brand. It's hard sometimes, especially with financing schemes, to shrink after growth, but many businesses function fine with a satisfactory market size to keep operations running. As an investor, I might not put money in a company that declared it wanted to slow down replacement of its products because of the environment by building longer-lasting products. But as a consumer, I would definitely consider buying them.
• mekoka 3y ago
  > But in the end, convincing people to just not buy stuff would be the best thing to do. Companies that are trying to play both sides are suspect to me. I sort of agreed with you, but only up to your conclusion. Imo, this kind of all or nothing outlook tends to let the dogmatic be the enemy of the pragmatic. I find it unrealistic and impractical. I also disagree with the notion that there might be a "side" that has some kind of monopoly on being genuine, because it claims some sort of purity of ideals. That's not the color of reality and you'll have to kill a lot of people to create that utopia, either before or after. Mobile phones are here to stay. If out of two companies, one spends its resources trying to convince people to stop using them, while the other just acknowledges the need and settles for nudging the culture toward repair rather than replace, I think the latter is the one being "real". As for the company's financial and social incentives, I don't know Fairphone enough to know if what you implied would be true about them. I'd say that a company can aim for profitability and self-sustainability, and still hit all their other targets, including the environmental ones. Generally, it's when you aim for growth at all cost (e.g. you took some vc money) that all other objectives take a backseat or go the way of the door.