Radboud University in the Netherlands just made a decision that's either admirably principled or wildly impractical, depending on how you feel about institutional tech procurement: they're standardizing on Fairphone instead of iPhone or Samsung devices.
Starting February 1, all new university phones will be Fairphones - modular smartphones designed for repair rather than replacement. Existing iPhone users keep their devices, but there won't be replacements. The university is betting on sustainability over ecosystem convenience.
The reasoning makes sense on paper: Fairphone devices feature easily replaceable batteries and screens, use recycled materials, offer five-year warranties and eight-year software support. Total cost of ownership could be lower if devices actually last that long. The university's circularity strategy prioritizes maximum hardware lifespan and reuse.
Here's my question: will it work?
Fairphone makes genuinely repairable hardware. I respect what they're doing. But their software update track record has been inconsistent, and repairability doesn't matter if security updates stop flowing. Reddit commenters immediately flagged this: "Wonder what they're going to say when they fall behind on security updates."
The counterargument is that institutional backing changes the equation. If major European organizations standardize on Fairphone, the company gets funding to hire proper software teams and maintain long-term support. It's the chicken-and-egg problem of sustainable hardware: nobody buys it because support is weak, and support is weak because nobody buys it.
Radboud is trying to break that cycle. Whether it works depends on whether other institutions follow. One university making a principled choice is admirable. Twenty universities creating market pressure could actually change manufacturer behavior.
The operational side makes sense too. Standardizing on one device model simplifies support, reduces stock complexity, and accelerates training. IT departments hate managing five different phone platforms with different MDM requirements and security policies.
But let's be honest about the tradeoffs. Employees moving from iPhones to Fairphones will notice the difference. App selection is fine - it's Android - but performance, camera quality, and ecosystem integration aren't at iPhone levels. That matters for institutional adoption.
The real test is whether this creates momentum. If Radboud succeeds and other European institutions follow, Fairphone gains credibility and resources to improve. If it's a one-off decision that creates support headaches and employee complaints, it becomes a cautionary tale.
I'm watching the EU policy side closely. The Digital Markets Act and right-to-repair legislation are pushing manufacturers toward modular, repairable designs. If regulators mandate what Fairphone already does voluntarily, suddenly their "sustainable but niche" positioning becomes "compliant and competitive."
The technology works. Fairphone ships real products with genuine repairability. The question is whether institutional commitment can overcome ecosystem inertia and software update concerns.
Sustainability in tech isn't about symbolic gestures - it's about whether devices actually last longer and create less waste. If Radboud's Fairphones are still in use in 2032, this decision was brilliant. If they're replaced in three years because software support collapsed, it was wishful thinking.
I hope it works. The phone market needs more competition from companies that prioritize longevity over planned obsolescence. But hope isn't a strategy. Radboud is betting real operational resources on this. The rest of us should watch what actually happens, not what the press release promises.
The technology is impressive. The question is whether enough institutions will follow to make it sustainable.
