If the goal is reliability, modularity may not be the right way to get there. Why not just build something tough enough that it doesn&#x27;t break?  There are militarized rugged smartphones.[2]  You will break before they do.[3] If you bend the frame on your modular repairable smartphone, you can&#x27;t fix it anyway.<p>If the goal is upgradability, you don&#x27;t just need modularity.  You need a whole ecosystem building components to some standard. The Fairphone doesn&#x27;t have that.  Google, in 2014, was talking about an upgradable modular phone held together by magnets.  It didn&#x27;t work very well; if dropped, it fell apart.[4]<p>IFixit likes it if you can unscrew and replace every part.  This does help maintainability. But do you want to go there?  Here&#x27;s the extreme case of that - a Model 15 Teletype. Every small part, of about 2000 of them, is replaceable.  Here&#x27;s repairing a damaged Model 15 from a dumpster, something I did last year.[1] Just because you can doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;s an effective use of time.<p>Phones should Just Work. Make them indestructible, not field-modifiable.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;brassgoggles.co.uk&#x2F;forum&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;topic,43672.0.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;brassgoggles.co.uk&#x2F;forum&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;topic,43672.0.html</a>
[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catphones.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catphones.com</a>
[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=mVPku-xItv8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=mVPku-xItv8</a>
[4] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techtimes.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;77985&#x2F;20150819&#x2F;googles-project-ara-phone-falls-apart-when-dropped-release-pushed.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techtimes.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;77985&#x2F;20150819&#x2F;googles-pro...</a>