- cross-posted to:
- linustechtips@lemmit.online
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- linustechtips@lemmit.online
- technology@lemmy.world
It started with notebooks, but that wasn’t the master plan.
It started with notebooks, but that wasn’t the master plan.
I hope not phones. Fairphone has the repairable market, and that would take away from Framework as well as Framework taking away from Fairphone, making both weaker.
Maybe tablets would make sense, if you could reuse components from the laptops.
In Europe.
Framework sells their products in more markets, including North America, which adds another 600 million potential customers.
This says you have been able to buy a Fairphone in the US since July last year, unless I’ve misunderstood?
That’s a third party who installs their own version of android on Fairphones and then sells them.
I’m in Canada, and they don’t ship here. If I place an order as an American, all versions and variants are on backorder and there’s no mention of parts availability.
So, no. They don’t officially sell or support the North American market.
Options and competition are good things for consumers. Not sure why you would be against that.
When you have a small market niche, competition can kill both companies. I’m not worried about options, I’m worried that soon both companies won’t exist.
I think the only way it makes sense for Framework to get into the phone market is to follow the footsteps of Pine64 trying to create Linux phones. There’s no point making a phone at an inherently higher cost to make it more durable and repairable with a “closed SDK” SoC that has a fixed EoL date. I made a more detailed comment about this in the main thread.