Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tepix | Hacker News Reader

Longevity. Use less resources by repairing.

It’s somewhat morose to consider that the resources expended to bring this device into the world likely far exceed the positive environmental impact of the relatively few number of repairs that users of this device will ultimately perform.

That is to say, a mainstream phone’s production is so optimized and streamlined, that the weighted average environmental impact of making 10 more (e.g. iPhones) is significantly less than the weighted average environmental cost of making 1 Fairphone.

Maybe if you factor in the value of performance art and political proselytizing then you can justify it!

So I used to have a Fairphone 2 until recently, and have put that phone through a lot of abuse. As a result I did have to replace various modules at times (most often the bottom module, which is responsible for the charger and the microphone). Relative to the entire phone however replacing these small modules represent only a few percentages in terms of embodied energy and resources. The bulk of energy goes into the core module, IIRC.

In the end the core module also started becoming unstable (I have to emphasize though that the phone had endured a lot of physical abuse, as well as certain apps that probably overheated the CPU more than a few times) and I had to replace it two months ago. If the FP3 had been announced earlier I would have bought it instead of the phone I ended up replacing the FP2 with.

You should also factor in the 'setting an example for other vendors' value. They're showing it's quite easily possible, and are shaming other vendors a bit in the process.

> a mainstream phone’s production is so optimized and streamlined

Economically, sure—manufacturers optimize to be as cost-effective as possible.

Environmentally? Doubtful.

And 80% of statistics are made up on the spot.

(Would be interested in any links to studies or economic models in this area though.)

Well, there is obvious bias but Fairphone itself has lots of articles about their research into their environmental impact:

https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/208539846

https://www.fairphone.com/en/research-resources/

It was slightly tongue in cheek, but the point relates to fixed versus marginal environmental costs of production.

It’s sort of a backwards way of thinking about the “Marginal Abatement Cost Function” (MAC) which is non-linear at the point you decide to go from producing 1 unit of output to shuttering the factory entirely.

At the point where you are producing 36 million phones, the marginal economic cost is at its lowest. The marginal economic cost of your first unit, by comparison, is a massive step function.

Which is why I started by saying it’s a morose way of looking at things, because you get stuck in a local minimum that way.

Too late to edit, but that should read marginal environmental impact, not marginal economic cost. (Both are true)

> That is to say, a mainstream phone’s production is so optimized and streamlined, that the weighted average environmental impact of making 10 more (e.g. iPhones) is significantly less than the weighted average environmental cost of making 1 Fairphone.

I agree that the lack of repairability requirements and the sheer volume of production make it plausible such optimisations could have happened. But we know neither whether they happened, nor the scale of the benefits. Unless you're Tim Cook I guess, in which case bring back iPhone 5S form factor.

Every single microchip uses a lot of resources. You can't just handwave that away by talking about streamlining and optimizing building an entire phone. You are making wildl inaccurate guesses.

I see how that can be true, but won't you agree that specific numbers would help you make that case?

But needs repairing more often due to no waterproving and a soft shell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com