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
555 240 204
  • you use all five every week?

    I use them and that's more than reason enough to want a reliable, small, cheap, jack that literally has no downsides and lets me use my devices how I want to use them.

  • Alright what phone are you using with a jack?

    Sony Xperia 5V

  • Headphone jack is e-waste

    you can use the usb C headphones

    What the absolute fuck are you talking about? What am I supposed to do with the dozen wired headphones I already have? Some of them decades old? Throw them in the garbage? Sounds real eco-friendly.

    bluetooth audio is great

    It is. We had it on phones since before the original iPhone. No one wants to take that away.

    Problem is BT headphones last 2 years then they go in the garbage because the batteries are dead. How eco-friendly is that!?

    Yes if they've lasted decades thats their job done. Now people are buying usb C headphones and there is no need to continue to support decades old standards. The ewaste from a pair of headphones is tiny so its not worth fretting over.

    Also BT headphones last longer than 2 years. Mine are 1st gen samsung buds and going on 5 years at this point and still hold enough charge to listen to music during my work day. If im going to be using them all day I have 1 in and 1 charging in the case and then I can easily have music for 10+ hours on a 5 year old device. If I threw them away today I would consider them to have not been ewaste.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    One plus did the same thing. Now they're no different then all the expensive brands out there.

  • Fair enough, feel free to buy USB-C headphones then.

    Edit: Time for the real reply.

    I never have to charge my wired headphone.

    But you still have to charge your phone. When I charge my phone I also charge my headphones. Most wireless headphones notify you in advance when they're running low, in my experience enough in advance to not run out before charging again. And finally, charging even once a day is still less overhead than having to manage wires every single time you use the headphones.

    Nor do I have to buy new batteries or new headphones when they die

    Yeah, you only buy new headphones when the wire gets damaged because that one time you didn't take good enough care of the wire. I personally had to buy a new set of headphones every year because I'm bad with wires. I'd either store them poorly because I was in a hurry or they'd get stuck on something and get yanked. My first BT headphones lasted me 5 years before starting to have noticeable battery issues and then I still used them for another 3 years before the battery was so dead it wouldn't live my daily commute.

    overall my response boils down to "just use wired then" because the arguments are silly personal preference arguments and the wider consumer market has already decided that wireless is better. But if you want wired nothing is stopping you from getting USB-C wired headphones.

    No consumer decided it would be better without it, there's literally no reason to defend it's removal. It doesn't exist because the phone companies wanted to sell their wireless earbuds, that's it. Anything else they tell you is bullshit.

    Why are you trying to justify not having it? You can still use your wireless buds if you want if the port exists, you can still use your USB-C earphones or adapter if you'd like. It can exist in harmony along with other features, like it did for decades before capitalism called for more profits.

  • Yes if they've lasted decades thats their job done. Now people are buying usb C headphones and there is no need to continue to support decades old standards. The ewaste from a pair of headphones is tiny so its not worth fretting over.

    Also BT headphones last longer than 2 years. Mine are 1st gen samsung buds and going on 5 years at this point and still hold enough charge to listen to music during my work day. If im going to be using them all day I have 1 in and 1 charging in the case and then I can easily have music for 10+ hours on a 5 year old device. If I threw them away today I would consider them to have not been ewaste.

    Yes if they've lasted decades thats their job done

    No it means they'll essentially last indefinitely, unlike BT buds.

    Now people are buying usb C headphones and there is no need to continue to support decades old standards

    No, what's happened is that we went from a single open standard for audio jacks to competing standards (actually 3 of them before the EU stepped in and forced Apple to quit their bullshit). And gained nothing in the process.

    The ewaste from a pair of headphones is tiny so its not worth fretting over.

    It's not a pair of headphones, it's millions of audio devices.

  • Sony Xperia 5V

    I didn't know sony made phones

  • Wait... have you actually lost your mouse? Hilarious if true 😂

    Well not actually lost... I just haven't found under which furniture it rolled yet 😅

  • This post did not contain any content.

    love fairphone but i cant go bacl from graphene os. its so nice not having google attacjed to everything.

  • LOL, 10m extension cord. I mean you've already established that you don't give a crap about sound quality with your first point but that's just ridiculous. Not to mention the 10m cord that your dragging around the house.

    I don't really care about sound quality when using earphones at home because I only use them when there's a lot of ambient noise so the sound will be bad either way. When doing vacuum cleaning, or the dishes, stuff like that. When I still had a smartphone I used a 1,5m extension cord so it wouldn't pull on the jack each time I move, but since it died I'm using a much longer one plugged to my PC (not actually 10m, that was hyperbole, more like 5m). It's not very convenient I'll admit, but it does the job.

  • I didn't know sony made phones

    They've always made phones...

  • Maybe you could start a competitor that produces a similar spec phone for $100?

    Obviously not, the poor spec choices led to the price. Perhaps the company claiming to focus on ethics could focus on ethics instead of bezel-less design and 120 Hz screens, thus bringing it in at a lower price point. Feel free to critique me now

  • They've always made phones...

    Not in the US apparently

  • how many times does the average person use wireless charging? Seriously, I haven't seen anyone do that yet, or know of someone who uses that.

    and yet that's still a major feature in lots of phones

    If I've asked a question twice and you've danced around it both times, that tells everyone what your answer is.

  • love fairphone but i cant go bacl from graphene os. its so nice not having google attacjed to everything.

    If you want something not Google, I used to have Ubuntu Touch on a Fairphone before Australia's 3G network was switched off. It would have to be an older Fairphone however.

  • 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.

    You know you've got not argument when you have to compare a $700 dollar phone to a $5 dongle for your argument to even make sense.

    First of all, I seriously doubt any $700 phone without a 3.5mm port is going to have a decent DAC, because there's no reason for it. In those phones the DAC is used primarily for phone calls. If those phones had a a 3.5mm port and they were flagship phones then maybe they would have higher quality DACs in them, but then they'd also cost more. And secondly, I wasn't talking about some cheap $5 dongle, I specifically said quality headphones.

  • No consumer decided it would be better without it, there's literally no reason to defend it's removal. It doesn't exist because the phone companies wanted to sell their wireless earbuds, that's it. Anything else they tell you is bullshit.

    Why are you trying to justify not having it? You can still use your wireless buds if you want if the port exists, you can still use your USB-C earphones or adapter if you'd like. It can exist in harmony along with other features, like it did for decades before capitalism called for more profits.

    Why aren't you complaining about the removal of a keyboard? Or the removal of SD card slots? Or the removal or the IR light? Or the notification light? or something else that used to be there but isn't now. Why is the 3.5mm port so special it deserves constant complaining about almost A DECADE LATER? Why must you be these grumpy old men who can't fucking move on with the times.

    I don't really care if the port is there or not, I'm just fed up with the constant whining about it. It's gone, the ship has sailed. The majority are more than happy to use wireless headphones, 3.5mm is a niche in the mobile space. There are alternatives if you really like wired headphones. What makes 3.5mm such fucking hill to die on? Nothing. It's just petty conservatism of people unwilling to move on with the times.

  • 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.

    I made the mistake of believing that Fairphone is an enthusiast company, like the Framework of phones maybe. There is some overlap, sure, with the repair-ability aspect and available parts and schematics, but that's about it.

    Other than that, FP wants to be a mainstream brand, the eco-friendly Samsung or Apple; the power users can get shafted with their audio jacks for all they care. While Framework has actual hardware modularity and release updated HW modules so you don't buy the whole device again for an upgrade.

    Looking at FP's financial statements, I get the impression they aren't doing too hot lately, so I get it if they need bigger margins to continue operating. Just don't be a fucking hypocrite and lie about the reason of the jack removal ffs.

  • What about headphones with a replaceable cable? Higher quality cables usually last longer aswell

    Yeah, my current bluetooth headset has that option, and i keep a cable in reserve. the ones i had to replace were mostly in my teens/tweens, and were still cabled in-ear style - easier to hide under clothes and hair, but also no cable replacing if you don't know much about how to solder. TBH, if i had to decide i would not go back to cabled headphones at all - it's simply too limiting and irritating to deal with, especially with multiple audio sources. When listening to music the latency is not important (and has improved a lot in comparison to the humble start), and it's been a while since i had phones which had sound quality issues because of bluetooth.

  • This is thing with not understanding how statistics work. The point is that your personal experience is biased.

    These people are not passionate about phone thickness. They won't start or even have conversations about it. Specially since, for the most part, the companies are already catering to their tastes. But, if placed in front of a survey and asked to rank phone features by their importance for their purchase decisions, the overwhelming majority will rank other phones features way above a headphone jack. Most people on the planet are not audiophiles, and the majority of people perceive wires as an annoyance and an inconvenience.

    That is the point of surveying and market research. To check with the actual potential buyers what is worth making. Of course it isn't a guarantee, looking here at the recent flop of the Samsung Edge. But otherwise, a single person's perception of the market will never be complete or accurate.

    Are we forgetting that companies also have their own bias to make the decisions that increase overall profits? They lost buyers (me included) by this change, but they made up the difference by selling higher margin accessories. Companies will only cater to users if it aligns with turning a bigger profit. If adding an anti-feature is better for the bottom line, then that's how it goes. Enshittification doesn't happen accidentally, but by pushing the boundaries of what the users tolerate.

  • 279 Stimmen
    47 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Z
    Die mad about it :3 [image: cf6c5d73-a287-42a7-be2d-e80219312f02.webp]
  • How could AI escape human control?

    Technology technology
    5
    6 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    Z
    Don't mix up country bosses with technology bosses - even if they have the same brain damages.
  • 82 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    merde@sh.itjust.worksM
    (common people, this is the fediverse) [image: 922f7388-85b1-463d-9cdd-286adbb6a27b.jpeg]
  • 471 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    41 Aufrufe
    J
    Copyright law is messy. Thank you for the elaboration.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    44 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.
  • 24 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    S
    I think you're missing some key points. Any file hosting service, no matter what, will have to deal with CSAM as long as people are able to upload to it. No matter what. This is an inescapable fact of hosting and the internet in general. Because CSAM is so ubiquitous and constant, one can only do so much to moderate any services, whether they're a large corporation are someone with a server in their closet. All of the larger platforms like 'meta', google, etc., mostly outsource that moderation to workers in developing countries so they don't have to also provide mental health counselling, but that's another story. The reason they own their own hardware is because the hosting services can and will disable your account and take down your servers if there's even a whiff of CSAM. Since it's a constant threat, it's better to own your own hardware and host everything from your closet so you don't have to eat the downtime and wait for some poor bastard in Nigeria to look through your logs and reinstate your account (not sure how that works exactly though).
  • X/Twitter Pause Encrypted DMs.

    Technology technology
    52
    2
    257 Stimmen
    52 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    L
    There may be several reasons for this. If I had to guess, they found a critical flaw and had to shut it down for security reasons.
  • Hands-On: EufyMake E1 UV Printer

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    38 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    S
    I watched a bit of Michael Alm's video on this, but noped out when I saw all of the little boxes of consumables appearing. If regular printer ink is already exorbitant, I can only imagine what these proprietary cartridges will cost.