@Techaltar If you could ask them if and how they see the discrepancy between modularity for self-repairability and modularity for recyclability of the material, I would appreciate it.
There is ease of repairability for a professional and ease of repairability at home. And they seem to favour the latter. However, do they or would they still do so with a detrimental effect on material purity?
@Techaltar

They have already released a bunch of open source information. But what do they think of running the business in a transparent, "open-source" way:

- public, officially organized issue trackers for software and hardware (save time, cost, and would be customer-friendlier especially on new releases)

- put open-source resources (with docs) in a proper public github(-like) repo and open for contribution and particpation

@Techaltar I know from previous correspondence with Fairphone that they have had/have no plans to sell the FP5 in the US, but plan to sell the FP(Gen.)6 in the US via Murena, with /e/OS on it, starting in August. It will be that or the FP4, available through Murena, to the US.
That covered, please excuse the asides & organization of my questions below; hopefully they can be boiled down into content-useful things for you to ask:
1) Will there be any possibility/good reason to install the stock Fairphone OS on a Murena-sold FP4/(Gen.)6 that comes with /e/OS on it?
I know that the (forgive my terminology; if I look up the right term, I’ll get distracted! 🤣) “simplicity switch” functionality WILL be on the /e/OS-running phones, so that’s NOT a reason to put stock Fairphone OS on it.
2) How’s that partnership with Murena/The /e/ Foundation going for Fairphone? Solid, or at all concerning? I ask partially because…
3) While I’m impressed (on old hardware) with what I see of /e/OS 3.0.1 and 3.0.4 and its privacy management, I’m a bit concerned by Murena wording/link maintenance on their own website. It sounds awfully marketing boilerplate/meaningless & EVERY LINK seems to go to a page to set up a murena.io account. Also, the same page seems to be an open call to set up “partnerships” (apparently for sales) in the US. Seems a bit “build it and they will come,” in the US’s uncertain economy; is their US business model sustainable?
4) Among the links mentioned above is one claiming that Murena will offer mobile services in the US only as a T-Mobile MVNO, but again, the link only goes to setting up a murena.io account. Luckily, separate research reveals that Murena Mobile is and will be a thing (though maybe not cost-competitive with some other MVNOs in the US).
5) I’m assuming that similar to murena.io not being a requirement for using /e/OS, using a Fairphone 4 or Gen. 6 in the US will not REQUIRE using Murena Mobile? There will be no carrier lock (to either an MVNO or to T-Mobile networks more broadly), right?
6) Coming to the US, will there be any ability for the phone to use Verizon’s CDMA network? To use AT&T’s proprietary GSM bands that the rest of the world doesn’t use (and that non-AT&T-locked phones on their network don’t necessarily have to; they are just marketed as useful to AT&T customers “during periods of high congestion.”)?
A “no” answer about bowing to the technical foibles of US mobile networks is not a deal-breaker for me personally, but does tie in to others’ interests in what there was space/good reason to support on the FP(Gen.)6 PCB.
@Techaltar
I second the question about details on the tradeoffs that lead to them removing USB 3 and DP this time around and would maybe also include the considerations around continuing to not have a headphone jack in that.

Another question: as far as im aware neither the FP5 nor FP6 have any dedicated seals. How do they archive the IP55 rating? Just really tight tolerances and surface tension?

Relatedly: now that the back is screwed on, do they aim to move towards better ingress protection, perhaps adding compression gaskets?

Lastly: Up until the FP6 every Fairphone since the FP2 has had a transparent back, either exclusively or as an option. Why end that tradition?

@Techaltar

They make great hardware. From software side, many do not see Android as sustainable platform with openness and trust for the future, as it's closing down more and more
Do they have more support for the mainline Linux on the radar? Smartphones lack PC-like operating system compatibility across models and system modularity.

Cool sustainability-first projects benefitting from better mainline Linux support:
https://citronics.eu/
https://postmartketos.org
https://plasma-mobile.org/

@Techaltar @didek It is weird how you framed the questions.
Enthusiasts drive the needle. Enthusiasts should push the boundaries.
The low number of phone Linux users is directly connected to available hardware with *good* base support - see #SteamDeck . Would you avoid it because the vision of linux gaming handheld hasn't been executed before? It turned out to be outstanding device in its own right.
The same goes for Linux on phones - the desire is there. Available, stable base is missing.
1/
@Techaltar

For now, no. There is no OS that could target mainstream by any means.
But the base to build upon is already there, UIs like Phosh and basic set of apps (https://linuxphoneapps.org/apps/). So much so that as someone only using open apps and protocols already, if there was an actually well supported device I can see myself switching tomorrow (browser, Mastodon, Matrix chat, Tidal, YouTube clients… are there somewhat working).
I believe then reaching F-Droid level of app catalogue would be achievable and biggest gaps could be filled (for the rest Waydroid exists). Ability to program apps in plain Python or Rust could be a fresh air for developers. FP5 was close: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp5), no need for separate product line just a little push.

We have the eggs, just nowhere to incubate them.