Skip to content

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

Technology
555 240 58
  • For real, though, what is it?

    A time of flight sensor for autofocus

  • 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.

    Regarding resolution, I've been using my S21 Ultra at FHD quality (2400x1080) since I got it and it has a significantly large screen. I don't see a point in higher resolutions but I definitely appreciate higher refresh rates. Makes it feel smoother and more responsive.

  • I disagree about this being a good solution. USB-C is not meant to take the strain of being used as an audio port when being used in the go so there is risk of damaging the port while a headphone jack is more stable and allows the plug to rotate. Plus I don't want to have a dingle I can forget when in a rush.

    Plus I don't want to have a dingle I can forget when in a rush.

    Just have the dongle permanently attached to your earbuds like it's a part of the cable.

  • Probably not a popular thing to say on here, but I think you’ve lost the battle for the earphone jack. It probably just requires way too much real estate to be practical on a modern day cell phone.

    It absolutely does not require too much space. And you can still buy phones with headphone jacks, just not any of the (ironically) higher end models because OEMs know they can push their first party bluetooth headphones to these customers.

  • 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.

    My wired earbuds cost more than ten times that and will probably last me until I retire. The vast majority of those USB-c to 3.5mm adapters are cheap crap that have a worthless DAC and/or fall apart after a short time. I have purchased my wife three such adapters since she decided it was worth it to get a phone without a headphone jack and none of them have been good.

    I ended up having to buy her a separate portable music player to use. So thanks for that Google, Apple, and the rest of the greedy shithead OEMs.

  • You can get them in the U.S. with /e/OS through Murena, but they are $900 😞

    Thank you, this is huge!

    I was very, sad to miss out on the entire Fairphone 5 generation, but I gave up and bought a Pixel 8 when they announced the 5 wont be coming any time soon.

    Finally I can get a phone that's worth buying (and earbuds as I see they carry the fairbuds now)

  • 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.

    If the 10hz reading implementation is good I may consider upgrading my fp4. A better camera would be nice too but if they get the power saving if that screen right then I'm interested...

    Otherwise my fp4 has everything thing I need a phone to be

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Was really hoping to see a Fairphone 6a. Similar to the Google Pixel Series.
    Just a cheap version of it.
    I really don't need 120Hz, OLED or "No Bezels" all i want is big battery and a headphone jack that is all.

  • Phishing attacks? On a headphone? 🤣

    Wired headphones can be intercepted, as the wires unfortunately also act as an antenna (I'm a computer security technician, we semi-routinely do such interception).

    As for sound quality, it will always be limited by the DAC quality, and there is little way to add a good quality DAC without adding significant weight to the phone. Did you ever wonder why audiophiles audio players looks like bricks? That why.

    But I agree with point 2, 3 and 5, they are valid, but I don't agree with some aspects:

    • You can make some TW headphones bips to find them, which you cannot with wired ones for obvious reasons.
    • The cable is unfortunately often their weakpoints, and I had to throw away multiple of my headphones (which were fairly good quality ones) because of that. That's actually the main reason I went wireless. I was tired of the cable breaking, and it getting in my way.

    Now all my audio equipments are wireless, and I change their batteries every 5 years or so. Unfortunately I bought mines before Fairphone launched theirs, so it wasn't an option, but once any of my headphones eat the dust for good, I'll probably buy an easily repairable one if audio quality and codecs are acceptable (I'm an Audiophile, so that's important to me).

    Phishing attacks?

    Yep. There was a type of attack that utilized wireless headphone merging as an attack vector. With wired headphones, you can simply turn Bluetooth off.

    I know of DACs (been through audiophile phase myself), and sure, a typical integrated mobile one doesn't deliver THAT big of a quality. Still, wired headphones are not bottlenecking much just by the means of connection. And they are generally cheaper for the same audio quality, because you don't need to put batteries etc.

    Agree with your counterpoints. On the cable - I much prefer detachable options, so you can replace the cable easily. but the connector has to be strong enough - I'm a bit tired to see my Moondrop Chu disconnecting and shaking somewhere in my pocket.

  • Exactly this, that's a lot of space taken up to connect what 4 analog wires?

    That's insanity when a AUX to Usb-C converter does the job

    USB-C requires a lot of space for charging, data transfer etc.

    Let's remove it too and make phones rely on wireless charging instead.

  • so you need a dongle for the DAC, and an additional dongle for charging that is also, if I recall it correctly, violates the USB-C standard. did I understand it correctly?

    Sure, for simplicities sake let's just say it's impossible.

    How many times has the average person needed to do so in a year?

  • Thank you, this is huge!

    I was very, sad to miss out on the entire Fairphone 5 generation, but I gave up and bought a Pixel 8 when they announced the 5 wont be coming any time soon.

    Finally I can get a phone that's worth buying (and earbuds as I see they carry the fairbuds now)

    Please take note of MystValkyrie's response to my post. I have no experience with Murena and I cannot vouch for them. In light of what MystValkyrie shared, it might be wise to proceed with caution and maybe look into it more before ordering.

  • You are genuinely the first person I've seen online who understands screen size != Phone size, because bezels exist and are different sized from phone to phone.

    My current 6.3" screen phone is virtually identical in size to the 4.2" one I had in 2012.

    Bezels or not phones are still too large to be comfortable to use for many people.

    5.8" with no bezel would be a great size. Something comparable to an old 4-4.2" phone.

  • Plus I don't want to have a dingle I can forget when in a rush.

    Just have the dongle permanently attached to your earbuds like it's a part of the cable.

    Awesome solution. Remove the port that everything used to have and make consumers buy adapters. I have like 5 headphones. Should I go buy an adapter for each one? Not to mention that I can easily fix a headphone cable but if a 3.5 to usb-c adapter breaks, it basically becomes junk.

  • 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.

    Technically it only goes through 1 dac, not "another one". But still, yeah, your phone's dac is most likely a lot better than the one on a $10 adapter. However, the usb-c spec does allow an analog audio signal passthrough. Whether that's available or not depends on the phone I guess.

  • You'd ultimately be sacrificing battery size for that Aux jack you hardly use. For most that's not worth it

    Not really, no. There are even people that have been able to ADD a headphone jack to iphones that don't have one.

  • Probably not a popular thing to say on here, but I think you’ve lost the battle for the earphone jack. It probably just requires way too much real estate to be practical on a modern day cell phone.

    It absolutely does not. That's just the stupid propaganda companies distribute to make people buy wireless earbuds.

  • Technically it only goes through 1 dac, not "another one". But still, yeah, your phone's dac is most likely a lot better than the one on a $10 adapter. However, the usb-c spec does allow an analog audio signal passthrough. Whether that's available or not depends on the phone I guess.

    Too bad LG got out of the phone biz. They had the best dacs and some good phones.

  • Honestly, I don't really get the people who complain about the lack of 3.5mm jack on a smartphone. If you're looking for quality you're more likely to get better quality out quality USB-C headphones than quality 3.5mm headphones due to the USB-C headphones picking up less noise and having its own DAC (which is probably better than the phone DAC that 3.5mm would use).

    EDIT: I would've been surprised if this take wasn't controversial. But I guess it's a good example how the fediverse is not a leftist echo chamber. You have a loud minority complaining about not being able to use a century old technology that the vast majority in the mobile space has moved away from and any compromise on what you want is unacceptable. That's about as conservative as you can get.

    You are completely and utterly wrong. I'm pretty sure that a $700 phone's dac is better than what you can find on a $5 dongle from god knows where. Also, by design there should be no "noise" or "interference" causing issues with the internal dac. If there is, you bought an extremely shitty device.

  • Let me expand, as I usually deal with surveys and population feedback. There's loud feedback, and there's statistically significant feedback.

    People who want a headphone jack are very loud. They will interject this issue into every feedback opportunity given. They will mention it on the comment sections, forums, q&a sessions, answer their surveys accordingly, etc. That's all fine and their prerogative.

    However, when you look at the statistics. They are unfortunately a very tiny minority of the entire population. They are not statistically significant for decision making. They don't have the volume to move sales significantly. This sucks, of course, and I personally wouldn't mind the return of headphone jacks, smaller phones and bigger batteries as a fair trade for thicker phones.

    But unfortunately, the vast majority of the market is pre-occupied with other things. The phone screen is too small, the phone weights too much, the phone is too thick, I want to bring my phone to the pool without fear of it breaking, etc. They are not as passionate about it, not like the headphone people are, but they far outnumber them in several orders of magnitude. In the end, if the product doesn't sell, it won't matter how much it was worth to a single passionate person. It will sink the company if it doesn't have mass appeal. Making phones is already an extremely expensive endeavor.

    You know why there aren't more users complaining about this? Because they flat out did not buy the device for that reason (e.g. me). Removing the jack is also extremely hyprocritical coming from a "sustainable" company.

  • Big Brother Trump Is Watching You

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites

    Technology technology
    205
    2
    769 Stimmen
    205 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    R
    Gemini is just a web replacement protocol. With basic things we remember from olden days Web, but with everything non-essential removed, for a client to be doable in a couple of days. I have my own Gemini viewer, LOL. This for me seems a completely different application from torrents. I was dreaming for a thing similar to torrent trackers for aggregating storage and computation and indexing and search, with search and aggregation and other services' responses being structured and standardized, and cryptographic identities, and some kind of market services to sell and buy storage and computation in unified and pooled, but transparent way (scripted by buyer\seller), similar to MMORPG markets, with the representation (what is a siloed service in modern web) being on the client native application, and those services allowing to build any kind of client-server huge system on them, that being global. But that's more of a global Facebook\Usenet\whatever, a killer of platforms. Their infrastructure is internal, while their representation is public on the Internet. I want to make infrastructure public on the Internet, and representation client-side, sharing it for many kinds of applications. Adding another layer to the OSI model, so to say, between transport and application layer. For this application: I think you could have some kind of Kademlia-based p2p with groups voluntarily joined (involving very huge groups) where nodes store replicas of partitions of group common data based on their pseudo-random identifiers and/or some kind of ring built from those identifiers, to balance storage and resilience. If a group has a creator, then you can have replication factor propagated signed by them, and membership too signed by them. But if having a creator (even with cryptographically delegated decisions) and propagating changes by them is not ok, then maybe just using whole data hash, or it's bittorrent-like info tree hash, as namespace with peers freely joining it can do. Then it may be better to partition not by parts of the whole piece, but by info tree? I guess making it exactly bittorrent-like is not a good idea, rather some kind of block tree, like for a filesystem, and a separate piece of information to lookup which file is in which blocks. If we are doing directory structure. Then, with freely joining it, there's no need in any owners or replication factors, I guess just pseudorandom distribution of hashes will do, and each node storing first partitions closest to its hash. Now thinking about it, such a system would be not that different from bittorrent and can even be interoperable with it. There's the issue of updates, yes, hence I've started with groups having hierarchy of creators, who can make or accept those updates. Having that and the ability to gradually store one group's data to another group, it should be possible to do forks of a certain state. But that line of thought makes reusing bittorrent only possible for part of the system. The whole database is guaranteed to be more than a normal HDD (1 TB? I dunno). Absolutely guaranteed, no doubt at all. 1 TB (for example) would be someone's collection of favorite stuff, and not too rich one.
  • XMPP vs everything else

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    43 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    M
    Conversely, I have seen this opinion expressed a few times. I can’t judge the accuracy but there seem to be more than a few people sharing it.
  • For All That Is Good About Humankind, Ban Smartphones

    Technology technology
    89
    1
    131 Stimmen
    89 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    D
    Appreciated, but do you think the authorities want to win the war on drugs?
  • Diego

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 132 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    V
    Ah, yes. That's correct, sorry I misunderstood you. Yeah that's pretty lame that it doesn't work on desktop. I remember wanting to use that several times.
  • 48 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    evkob@lemmy.caE
    Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported
  • AI could already be conscious. Are we ready for it?

    Technology technology
    64
    1
    16 Stimmen
    64 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    A
    AI isn't math formulas though. AI is a complex dynamic system reacting to external input. There is no fundamental difference here to a human brain in that regard imo. It's just that the processing isn't happening in biological tissue but in silicon. Is it way less complex than a human? Sure. Is there a fundamental qualitative difference? I don't think so. What's the qualitative difference in your opinion?