Fairphone announces the €599 Fairphone 6, with a 6.31" 120Hz LTPO OLED display, a Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 chip, and enhanced modularity with 12 swappable parts
-
They cooperate with Murena, so /e/OS is officially supported and you can buy new devices with /e/OS installed. I am running /e/OS on my Fairphone 5 and it works great.
They also seem to have given developer devices to the PostmarketOS folks, so that they hit the ground running with a working FP6 port already. I'm not sure exactly what is going on behind the scenes between Fairphone and PostmarketOS here - maybe @[email protected] can fill us in.
Wasn't even aware of Murena, will def have a look, thanks for sharing all that info!
-
Wirelessly.
Or you switch to your bluetooth buds during a wired charge.
I'm all for audio jacks, but have been using a phone without one for 4 years now, and there are so many options to not be incovenienced.
Also I don't use my audiophile headphones with the phone at all - DAC on it just isn't good enough to get most out of then, prefer to use them with my desktop PC amp only.
good luck charging my phone wirelessly! wireless charging is also very wasteful, and it does not support idle charging (powering the phone without wearing the battery), even if the phone otherwise does. doesn't it also take up a significant amount of that precious space inside the phone?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Honestly, this might be the first fairphone which I would classify as good enough for daily use.
-
C'mon, this is getting childish. No, I don't have headphones while driving, I have an audio input to the car's stereo.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Then maybe don't make examples of something I never talked about? I think I've been very clear that I'm talking about replacing 3.5mm headphones with a USB-C headphones. I wasn't talking about replacing a 3.5mm in/out cable with some kind of a USB-C in, 3.5mm out cable. Such a cable would have to contain a DAC and if it's going to contain a DAC you might as well buy a USB hub with a 3.5mm out port so you can continue using your 3.5mm in/out cable while you also charge your phone. See how that's a completely different scenario with a completely different solution?
-
You can get a USB-C splitter adapter.
isn't that against the USB-C standard?
-
You can get good Bluetooth earbuds for under $50 and a USB-C to AUX dongle for under $15.
The average person is fine with Bluetooth earbuds or an adapter, and audiophiles would not find the inbuilt DAC/amp on a phone to be adequate.
Maybe I chose the wrong $10 adapter but I notice a big drop in sound quality using that vs Bluetooth, to the point that it's not worth using unless there isn't another option. I'm not really an audiophile, though I can notice the general quality of sound.
-
Fairphone has been a really disappointing experiment in so-called sustainable tech over the years. They keep making new phones instead of continuing to support the old ones, which might be greenwashing. (Whereas if you got a legacy Framework 13, it's still user-repairable and upgradable.) If they wanted to make a non-upgradable device, maybe it would have been wise to make it high-end to futureproof to work until 4G gets phased out. Fairphone still is not making their products available in the U.S., and Murena is a borderline scam company and I am genuinely shocked Fairphone works with them.
And I've heard their logic with the headphone jack, but I do think AUX is the lesser of two evils as removing it will just lead to more e-waste with broken bluetooth headphones that rarely last as long as good wired ones. Fairphone's own bluetooth accessories have gotten negative reviews for their lower build quality, so Fairbuds are likely not the solution to the headphone jack problem.
For the simple fact that non-Europeans can buy them directly off the website, I would sooner recommend feature phones from Sunbeam as it also has user-replaceable batteries and you can send it in for repairs. Or just any phone used.
I've had to swap a lot more cabled headphones out due to cable damage than bluetooth headphones, but i also only use overear headphones, which have enough battery storage for days. Also, there are also overear headsets that are dual-useable with headphone jack or bluetooth (no noise cancelling with jack tho). Also, the issue with the replacement of headphones lies with the producers of headphones w/o changeable power source, not with the phone.
And regarding availability in the US: i have the suspicion that the average european will be much more inclined to pay the 2-300$ upmark in price just for greener tech than the average american. i'm sure that they would love to sell more phones, but it's not ecological or economical to ship them onto a continent where 80-90% of people would either compare specs only and cannot afford to go for a more sustainable phone or - a predominantly USA thing - who revel in the fact that their choice is not ecological.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Compared to the Fairphone 5 it has some improvements but also a few downsides:
Pro:
- It's a bit smaller (~4mm) and lighter (~20g)
- Slightly better camera (future tests will tell how much better)
- 120 Hz display
- More RAM and storage (although I feel that the previous 6GB/128GB option was also sufficient for most users)
- WiFi 6E Tri-Band (however you will likely never need this speed)
- Bluetooth 5.4
- Slightly larger battery
Con:
- Backpanel now requires a screwdriver
- Display has less resolution/PPI
- Performance of processor will likely be nearly identical to predecessor (however it's more efficient and modern)
- Downgrade to USB 2
- 600€
My conclusion:
Overall the improvements are ok, however just releasing the Fairphone 5 with a newer SoC might have been the better/more cost effective choice.
Sacrificing display resolution for 120 Hz feels also quite wrong.
600€ is very pricy for a phone like this. Cutting some premium features away like the 120 Hz display or a bit of RAM and storage (that you can extend anyway with an SD card) might have saved enough to get the launch price down to somewhere near 500€ which would make it accessible for a wider audience. -
I've had to swap a lot more cabled headphones out due to cable damage than bluetooth headphones, but i also only use overear headphones, which have enough battery storage for days. Also, there are also overear headsets that are dual-useable with headphone jack or bluetooth (no noise cancelling with jack tho). Also, the issue with the replacement of headphones lies with the producers of headphones w/o changeable power source, not with the phone.
And regarding availability in the US: i have the suspicion that the average european will be much more inclined to pay the 2-300$ upmark in price just for greener tech than the average american. i'm sure that they would love to sell more phones, but it's not ecological or economical to ship them onto a continent where 80-90% of people would either compare specs only and cannot afford to go for a more sustainable phone or - a predominantly USA thing - who revel in the fact that their choice is not ecological.
What about headphones with a replaceable cable? Higher quality cables usually last longer aswell
-
What about headphones with a replaceable cable? Higher quality cables usually last longer aswell
This is what I do and have had vastly better experiences than with Bluetooth.
-
I've had to swap a lot more cabled headphones out due to cable damage than bluetooth headphones, but i also only use overear headphones, which have enough battery storage for days. Also, there are also overear headsets that are dual-useable with headphone jack or bluetooth (no noise cancelling with jack tho). Also, the issue with the replacement of headphones lies with the producers of headphones w/o changeable power source, not with the phone.
And regarding availability in the US: i have the suspicion that the average european will be much more inclined to pay the 2-300$ upmark in price just for greener tech than the average american. i'm sure that they would love to sell more phones, but it's not ecological or economical to ship them onto a continent where 80-90% of people would either compare specs only and cannot afford to go for a more sustainable phone or - a predominantly USA thing - who revel in the fact that their choice is not ecological.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I get it, Americans bad. Burger cowboys who drive big trucks and hate nature and worship Trump. It's a less certain market. But environmentalism is split on ideological lines and some of us aren't walking American stereotypes and would really like a sustainable option if we could get one.
At the very least, they should drop Murena as a partner and find an honest company to distribute instead.
-
I had a phone without before, that one came with a simple cheap passive adapter for USB-C to 3.5mm headset. You lose out on using headphones while charging, but other than that I was never really inconvenienced...
That means the audio still goes through another DAC, lowering the sound quality, compared to an analog 3.5 jack. Also, who wants to further risk wearing out\vreaking their charge port, jack inputs almost seem like they can't break.
-
You also have to remember to have that adapter with you
If you need to plug the headphones into the adapter, you can just leave them plugged in after disconnecting from the phone
This way, the headphones almost become ones with USB-C connectors than auxiliary barrels.
-
Read through the whole report, sum up all the money they mention. It comes out to $16 000. Double that for the stuff where they don't mention money (because they surely would mention anything that costs more than the things they do mention). Double it again, for a safety margin. Double it again, because we are really generous. Now we are at €128 000. Divide that by the number of devices sold in 2024 and you get $1.24. Now add the $1.20 (Page 29) they pay as a living wage bonus and you arrive at $2.44 per device.
And now let's be super generous and double that guess again, and you end up with the <€5 per device that I quoted above.
The picture becomes clearer when you look at what they say about their fair material usage.
Take for example the FP5 (page 42 & 67). Their top claim here is "Fair materials: 76%", which they then put a disclaimer next to it, that they only mean that 76% of 14 specific focus materials is actually fair. On the detail page (page 67) they specify that actually only 44% of the total weight of the phone is fairly mined, because they just excluded a ton of material from the list of "focus materials" to push up the number.
The largest part of these materials are actually recycled materials (37% of the 44% "fair" materials). The materials they are recycling are plastics, metals and rare earth elements. That's all materials that are cheaper to recycle than to mine. You'll likely find almost identical amounts of recycled materials in any other phone, because it makes economical sense. It's just cheaper. Since these materials cost nothing extra to Fairphone, we can exclude them from the list, which leaves 1% of actually fair mined material (specifically gold), and 6% of materials that they bought fairwashing credits for.
Also, the raw materials of phones are dirt cheap compared to the end price. The costly part is not mining the materials, but manufacturing all the components.
With only 1% of the materials being fairly mined and only 6% being compensated with credits, you can start to see why in total they spend next to nothing on fair mining/fair credits.
Thanks for the detailed reply. You saying that "They themselves claim that they don’t spend more than €5 per phone on fair trade or environmental stuff" is a complete lie. It's not a number they're claiming, it's a number you've estimated. And lets be clear: what you've done is take $3k in gold credits plus $13k cobalt credits and multiplied that by an arbitrary 8x.
I think you've gone into your analysis with a foregone conclusion. There simply isn't enough information to say anything about the cost overheat of being "fair".
You’ll likely find almost identical amounts of recycled materials in any other phone, because it makes economical sense. It’s just cheaper.
And yet the FP4 was significantly less recycled. Plastic is certainly not cheaper to recycle; that's a lie the plastic industry's been pushing for a while.
-
This post did not contain any content.
For real, though, what is it?
-
I've never met someone that cared about a thinner phone, they've been too thin since 2015..
People that want their ducking hradphine jacks? They are everywhere.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Do you interact with people outside of audiophile circles? I'm not in any, and I haven't heard anyone in person complain about a missing headphone jack in many years, not after a few years of airpods being available. Hell, I don't know anyone who uses wired headphones anymore. I have heard people mention that my phone is too heavy, and I'm using a pixel 9 pro. Before this phone I was using a pixel 5, and I had people telling me my phone was too small/plastic-y. I don't think you have an understanding of "normal people" They aren't tech enthusiasts, they aren't audiophiles, and they are genuinely shocked when I tell them about how egregiously most tech companies are violating their privacy, but are quick to say that they don't care/don't want to give up creature comforts to prevent it.
-
Just out of interest, because I too love the jack, then what are you buying in the future?
I have a Sony Xperia that has both a jack and a SD slot. I shelled out for the top of the line one, but since it has good specs I plan on keeping it for many years.
-
Okay, I'm going to ask... why don't you use wireless?
Edit: some results are in, and the only reasonable answer is better audio quality, although that's probably no longer true. The rest are fairly weak reasons.
Lol'd at the 10m extension cord though, thanks for that one.
It's about options. You can still use Bluetooth even with a phone that has a 3.5mm jack. I also run live sound and have used the ability to plug my phone directly into the board for background music multiple times.
-
Battery degradation. Wired earphones/headphones can be BIFL if treated properly. A typical wireless device will see battery degradation within a handful of years, and I have yet to see a decent TWS solution with replaceable batteries.
The Fairbuds does have a replaceable battery if that's what you are searching for. Sure, the sound won't be as good as a Sony, Bose, or the like, but it would be good enough if your focus is durability instead of perfect sound quality.
-
I’m assuming they are removing the headphone jack cause the internal components take up too much space. I can’t imagine these companies removing the jacks cause they cost too much money.
You're vastly overestimating the space required for a 3.5mm jack, and the reasons for its removal.
The jack takes up some internal space, but not much at all. The components required internally like the DAC chip are insignificant. It is a potential source of water ingress, but that can be mitigated and has been done many times before.
The reason for removal is two fold, first you simply don't have to deal with any of the above, so from an engineering perspective it's always easier to not do something. The second, and most important, **is to sell wireless headphones. **
You'll notice that Fairphone came out with their own earbuds at the same time they removed the headphone jack. You could of course use Bluetooth headphones with the Fairphone 1, 2, and 3, but you weren't forced to think about it and could just use your existing headphones. Removing the jack ads inconvenience and breaks user habit, causing people to re-evaluate their headphones and consider a new purchase, which the manufacturer just happens to have and likely in a bundle deal.
Apple, Google, and Samsung have seen huge uplift in earbud sales with the removal of the jack. So the anger of some power users is of no consequence to them. Seeing Fairphone follow in this behaviour what's disappointing.
