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
555 240 127
  • 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.

  • 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.

    Let me give you simple example. When I take a flight, I like to watch my own media. Those flights sometimes are upwards of 10 hours. If I use wireless earbuds, both the earbuds and my phone will run out of battery and I have to charge them separately. However, since I have a phone with a headphone jack, my earbuds never run out of battery, I can charge my phone while I'm using them and I don't need to use a single adapter.

    Oh yeah, and the audio quality is also better.

  • 172 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    I wouldn't go quite as far. This is just breacrumbs falling of the corporate table.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Signal – an ethical replacement for WhatsApp

    Technology technology
    235
    1
    1k Stimmen
    235 Beiträge
    203 Aufrufe
    V
    What I said is that smart people can be convinced to move to another platform. Most of my friends are not technically inclined, but it was easy to make them use it, at least to chat with me. What you did is change "smart people" with "people who already want to move", which is not the same. You then said it's not something you can choose (as you cannot choose to be rich). But I answered that you can actually choose your friends. Never did I say people who are not interested in niche technologies are not smart. My statement can be rephrased in an equivalent statement "people who cannot be convinced to change are not smart", and I stand to it.
  • matrix is cooked

    Technology technology
    75
    1
    180 Stimmen
    75 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    penguin202124@sh.itjust.worksP
    That's very fair. Better start contributing I guess.
  • Meta Filed a Lawsuit Against The Entity Behind CrushAI Nudify App.

    Technology technology
    21
    1
    92 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    L
    I know everybody hates AI but to me it's weird to treat artificially generated nudity differently from if somebody painted a naked body with a real person's face on it - which I assume would be legally protected freedom of expression.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 50 Stimmen
    27 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    S
    Brother I live in western Europe and of the 6 supermarkets in my smallish city, 4 offer the handscanner. It's incredibly common here, and very convenient.
  • 14 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    M
    Exactly, we don’t know how the brain would adapt to having electric impulses wired right in to it, and it could adapt in some seriously negative ways.