They mention the Pixel and I just got to say, I wish someone would bring back the fingerprint reader on the back of the phone. That was seriously the best solution. Fastest way to unlock your phone, because no matter how slow the fingerprint reader is you activate it while pulling it out of your pocket. I honestly don't get why people like Face ID more (what I currently use). Someone, please bring this back
The backside fingerprint reader could even be used as an input device on some models for scrolling, or pulling down/up the notification bar. Great for scrolling through content or swiping through screens without having to cover your display for gesture input: https://www.androidauthority.com/miss-rear-fingerprint-scann...
This is one of the big things I miss from my Pixel 5a; it was so nice to be able to unlock the phone and pull down the notifications bar with one hand. There's a lot I like about the Pixel 8 Pro I replaced it with, but that's one thing I miss.
There was a "healthy" phone called the Bloc Phone which had the screen in Black & White by default but allowed you to use the fingerprint on the back at any time to give you a few minutes of colour when (say) looking through your camera roll. Really cool idea.
Exactly--this plus the usability original commenter communicated made this why I did so much work to keep my Pixel 3 alive for so long. I still think about the rear fingerprint sensor after a Pixel 3 -> pixel 6 -> S21 Ultra -> S24 Ultra journey, and further how much fun i had back in the ROM + kernel + modding + undervolting days.
Ironically, some devices (Pixel 9 at least) have now added a tiny little touch sensor exactly where the fingerprint reader used to be - it doesn't read the fingerprint, but you can regain this functionality by mapping taps to actions.
I can't even imagine why they decided to keep the fingerprint sensor on the front but add a whole separate sensor on the back.
Yeah! I use that quite a lot on my Pixel 4a. It's particularly useful to close the system quick settings, since I can just scroll once instead of 4 times x)
The fingerprint reader is one of the things I most love about my iPhone SE; I don’t see any reason to get a new phone.
Apple’s declining software quality and walled garden incline me more and more towards ditching iPhone for GrapheneOS or a dumb phone like the Punkt MP; I find far more joy reading on an eReader, taking photos with a camera, or taking notes in my notebook than I do using the phone for any of those.
Especially for notes, keeping journals for the last few years, I find such peace and even connection with myself and my thoughts in my journals; I write down passages from books that are meaningful to me, and seeing my own handwriting, the ink I wrote it in, even the shading in the ink – it all adds up to a deeply meaningful, physical experience.
Mail on iOS stopped working properly months ago, touch on this particular device sometimes does not work. Photos app is ridiculous. Software quality is declining. Even very average user like me can notice it.
An issue I have with my SE is that ever since the last major iOS release in September, I think they forgot how tall the device is. Notification Center pushes notifications so far down, that I’m unable to scroll down to see them. It feels like it was designed for a taller phone. However, I think this was fixed recently, which is great after months of being unable to use it to check notifications.
Devices like the Punkt MP would great in an ideal world (if they had support for something like XMPP). But in practice, a huge amount of people use Telegram, or WeChat or some other network for which you need a native phone app.
I guess this is highly subjective, I was just talking with my girlfriend last night about how much I dislike when the fingerprint reader is not on the front. Specifically because only if it is on the front I can easily use it when my phone is lying on the table.
Also, my current phone phone has it on the back and I can only configure one fingerprint, so if for some reason I am holding it in my left hand I am out of luck.
Definitely subjective. But popular enough that it should exist in the many many versions of Android phones that exist. What's the point of having so many varieties if they're all the same?
Fwiw, it I'm at my desk it'd usually be on its face for flip to silent. Then I pick up and it's natural. Or I'd be using scrcpy because if I'm in front of a computer why are my hands moving from the keyboard? I guess I'll compromise with the mouse lol
Single fingerprint registration is weird. Iirc I could do 2 on my pixel 2
Let's also stick an extra USB-C port on the side of the phone so that you can charge from whichever port is more convenient at the time. Or use an accessory like wired headphones and charge at the same time without carrying around a USB hub. Or if one breaks (charging ports are one of the most common things to fail on the phone) you can continue using the other one (either temporarily until the other is repaired or indefinitely).
My current phone has that and it's the absolute worst design choice I have ever seen in a phone. It is constantly triggering when I'm trying to lock the screen. I can't understand what the designers at Nokia were thinking, truly awful hardware design.
I was a FaceID skeptic and it quickly won me over, not because of the unlocking experience, but for the authentication during use. What used to be a prompt, followed by an active fingerprint scan, turned into something completely seamless and automatic.
My wife and her sister can unlock each other’s iPhones using the face unlock feature which blows my mind because they do NOT look super similar and are 4 years apart. I’ve turned off all biometrics and use only a PIN. I’m extremely skeptical of the tech.
That was my experience with a back fingerprint reader. I reach my hand into my pocket, my finger naturally lands on the sensor, and my phone is unlocked before it's out!
I rarely saw my lockscreen
But when I switched to the pixel 8 with a front reader I always saw it
Now on my iPhone I see it frequently and it doesn't land when wearing a mask, when I'm talking, when I'm not looking (I could blind navigate my phone), or when it's just dark. So it just feels painfully slow in comparison...
Nothing has beaten the magical experience of a back fingerprint reader and I think this is why so many of us miss it. But I'm sure it's one of those things you'd have had to use to really feel the magic
It doesn't have to be for everyone but there's enough phones that the option should be available...
FaceID is still not working well for many cases. I thought it was just my family, but it seems common enough [0].
It's nice that is works for you, but it really sucks when it fails as there's no other biometric alternative. And changing their whole ecosystem just to get working biometrics is a high bar for many.
1) I frequently unlock my phone while it's laying flat on the desk a good distance from my face. The camera can't see me, and certainly not well enough to identify me.
2) I don't believe that you can add a second FaceID. Currently I have a few fingers added to my TouchID, including my wifes index finger, allowing her to unlock my phone.
The one place i feel faceid is better than rear fingerprint reader is when i need to auth multiple times in quick succession like filling with my password manager.
FaceID is absolute terrible. If you wear glasses, the angle on which it operates it pretty narrow. It has a really hard time if your face is partially covered. I can't hold my phone near my lap/chest on a train and unlock it, I need to bring it up to eye level (a gesture most unwelcome when you want to be discreet in unsafe areas). I can't lie in the couch with the phone resting in front of me; I need to angle it up to unlock it. It won't unlock in the mist, light rain, or a variety of other situations.
I last tried the iPhone 16. It's a huge downgrade from the last iPhone SE.
I hate Face ID so much. I hate being asked for my PIN for every single little thing I do. I already unlocked my phone, please stop asking me. If I grabbed it, YES, I WANT TO DO THE THING!
-Exhausted Apple user also wanting easier authentication
Or the minute it actually takes to unlock my phone because it missed the first one and then asks for my pin and activates right before I finish entering my pin
The one thing that grinds my gears is how they made it mandatory for lock page widgets. I don’t need my smart lights faceid protected when I’m trying to turn them on in the middle of the night
the scene early in Demolition Man where Wesley Snipes takes advantage of the most critical flaw in biometric security has always made me shy away from it. if someone is motivated enough, removal of the unlocking body part is all to easy so I'll stick with pass codes or patterns
Removing a body part is also an effective way to get a pass code or pattern. If someone is willing to do you great harm to unlock your phone, I don't think it matters much what locking method you use.
Well, that, and in the USA at least the government are constitutionally allowed to use whatever force necessary to put your finger onto the reader, or your face in front of the scanner.
SInce I prefer to keep my fingers than my secrets, I do not care too much about this issue: I would give every password if threatened. However I don't want my fingerprint and my face features to be stored somewhere
They do Face ID because it's cooler and for unreasonable ideas about "security". As if most people are enough of a target to mess around with bio identification.
Apple best product is marketing by far; this is just one of the results.
I have been using Face ID since the iPhone X and agree that it sucks. It doesn't even really solve the "problems" I thought it would solve (unlock while cooking or other activities where your hands are dirty) because you need to look at the thing in a particular way and you need clean hands to interact with the phone anyway.
It is especially annoying because the design of the notch/dynamic island is just terrible/stupid.
There are days where I get so many misses that I feel like disabling the thing entirely since I have to use the passcode so much anyway.
I was already very skeptical of Touch ID but Face ID is just worse and more expensive for not much benefits.
This is the issue with technology nowadays, most of the real "problems" have been solved so tech companies come up with all kinds of nonsense to sell newer and shinier stuff.
At some point a screwdriver is a screwdriver and a smartphone is a smartphone, we just need it to be of good quality and last long, that's it. But this does not make for "infinite" growth so here we are...
I have never been able to unlock my under-screen fingerprint reader by taking it out of my pocket. This is because the reader isn't in a good position when the phone is in my pocket. Yes, it's where my thumb is when properly holding my phone, but my grip is different when pulling the phone out of my pocket. My older phone with the reader on the back had my index finger in position before I even attempted to take out of my pocket. It was slower at reading my prints, but was always unlocked before I looked at the screen.
I'd love to use the old phone for so many reasons, but the lack of updates has rendered it useless. No Lineage or Graphene for that one either.
Never worked out quite as well for me. There's no tactile feel, which is more important than people give credit for, especially when grabbing something without looking.
Plus, as others are pointing out, there's additional benefits
For all the hate that I give apple (great hardware, terrible company, wasted potential) it was extremely smart of them to buy PrimeSense. Even Microsoft kinda missed that boat.
This might be a minority experience but I used to use the Pixel 4a with the reader on the back and now the Pixel 8a with reader inside the display and I find the fingerprint reader of the 8a marginally faster and much more reliable. From an UX perspective I also find it slightly more practical on the front so I can unlock the phone without picking it up.
The back sensor had an indent too, so you could easily feel it. Hold your phone in your hand. Where does your index finger sit? If it is on the back of the phone, that's where the sensor was. It was very natural.
It's nice that it was working for you, and I also wish we could build more options for ourselves.
I think, even having a stable physical design would help tremendously: imagine each new Pixel with the same standard screen size and casing attachment. Google could still change the overall outer feel as long as it fits the inner latching mechanism.
Then building a third party back panel with a fingerprint reader becomes somewhat realistic. And we don't need Google to build an ecosystem, just stop doing their minuscule size tweaks every year and stabilize the attachment mechanism. Just that.
The Pixels had the worst option for a while: the under-screen optical sensor. Slow and prone to failure. They've since switched it out for an ultrasonic sensor, but it was shockingly bad for a few years.
I had an Pixel 9 Pro with the ultrasonic sensor and I found that it wouldn't work at all with a tempered glass screen protector. The optical sensor they had for previous generation sort of works fine with a screen protector
A big issue with fingerprint-only devices is water. If your finger, the reader or both are sufficiently wet, most readers just don't work. Most touchscreens also don't work too well in those conditions - certainly not well enough to enter a secure alphanumeric unlock code - but enough to pull up a map.
I've had my old iPhone 7+ turn into a charged brick multiple times in the rain. Never happened with the faceID phones.
I love having the fingerprint reader behind the screen on my Pixel 8a. It has a clear benefit vs. the back; you can unlock it while it's sitting on the table, without lifting it up.
My main gripe with fingerprint sensors on the back is that it's easy to inadvertently smudge the camera lens when unlocking the phone. Some phones have/had fingerprint unlock on the side power button which is similarly convenient, although I actually don't mind the underscreen sensors that are most common these days. I do appreciate being able to sneak a peek at my phone by discreetly unlocking it at very oblique angles that aren't possible with Face ID.
> I honestly don't get why people like Face ID more
Big +1. Face ID fails way more than Touch ID ever did. I know you couldn't your finger with wet hands or gloves, but that didn't come up all that much.
Face ID fails multiple times per day, every day. I can't unlock my phone well in bed, while brushing teeth, while it's sitting on a table not directly in front of me, if I'm in direct sunlight, in a car mount, etc. The only time it's more useful is when I'm already using the phone and need to auth for an app (bank, 1Password, etc). Then it's seamless. It just doesn't make sense as an unlock mechanism, IMO. iPad has the same problem - I can't unlock it if it's on the couch next to me without picking it up and holding it in front of my face.
Face ID would make a lot of sense on a laptop, which is always used in basically ideal conditions for unlocking: straight on view, probably inside, always centered on my face.
I'd love Touch ID on a phone's lock button, but that's not an option. And I'm worried that if it was an option, it would be relegated to the budget phones (like it is on ipads).
The problem with Unihertz though is that they lose interest in fixing software bugs approximately 5 minutes after lauching new phones. And, based on my experience, they tend to launch with a lot of bugs.
I had a Xiaomi phone with a fingerprint reader on the back, and now I have a Pixel phone with a fingerprint reader on the screen. It took about a week to get used to the new location, and I have been doing well since then. Do you have specific issues with it?
This is maybe specific to the model, but my previous phone (Xperia 10 V) had its sensor on the power button and I'd always unintentionally unlock it immediately after locking it and putting it back in my pocket
i got rid of my pixel and went back to sony because of the fingerprint sensor being on the back. when its lying flat on a desk you have to lift it up to unlock it, same deal when its in a dock of some sort, its very awkward. having it on the side is a much better idea
> I honestly don't get why people like Face ID more (what I currently use)
Because it works for authentication too. My password manager just... automatically authenticates me without me having to tap a thing. It recognizes the login form on the validated domain, it scans my face, it fills in my info. Same as paying with Wallet, I just slide up the credit card I want to use and it scans my face as I hold it against the reader.
And I'm not always pulling the phone out of my pocket, I'm picking it up off the table. I grab it by the edges, I'm not putting my finger on its back.
How can you ensure that your phone is not recording you 24/7? It’s called „trust“. Trust in the vendor, trust in independent 3rd parties that would identify such an issue, trust in capitalism because this would certainly be very bad publicity.
Why not both, though. Touch ID for the 80% of cases where it works and then is faster than Face ID, because by the time the phone is in front of your face it’s already unlocked, and Face ID for the remaining cases where Touch ID fails. If you can include three cameras, surely you can include two biometric sensors.
This was annoying, but it is less annoying than my experience with FaceID[0]. Sure, there's no perfect solution, but it isn't like we all have to use the exact same solution for everything, right? There's more than one phone out there...
I do hope we have a mutual understanding that we're talking about something subjective. Something that isn't the best option for everyone. FaceID, fingerprint, or whatever. There's no one size fits all...
All phones eventually become obsolete, but their guts could be used in so many ways. I'd love for example if someone made an enclosure acting also as multi port docking station so that old phones with unlocked bootloader (Fairphone being one of them) could be reflashed with a different operating system then used as mini PCs, media players, IoT wall terminals with bigger screens or other uses. Seeing all that perfectly good electronics going into landfills because planned obsolescence says so just irritates me. Can we do that at least for unlocked ones? Framework did something similar for their laptop mainboards, minus the docking station.function as they already have more ports than a phone. Any chances that this could be doable with Fairphone hardware?
> then used as mini PCs, media players, IoT wall terminals with bigger screens or other uses
If they can be used like that, why couldn't they be used... as phones?
Changing phone every two years is not sustainable, even if the old phone is used as an IoT wall terminal: it's still "consuming" one phone every two years. In a sense, an old phone in a drawer uses less energy than an old phone staying powered to control a lightbulb.
> planned obsolescence
Nitpick: I like to call it "premature obsolescence". Planned obsolescence is the idea of engineering the product to not last more than some time. I think nowadays it's often not the case; rather we engineer the product to last for the time of the warranty (1-2 years) and not more. And a product dying after 1 year is "premature", even though it was not actively engineered for that.
Under the new EU Ecodesign regulation, smartphone manufacturers must provide software updates for at least 5 years after the date of last sale, not 1-2 years.
(Applies to newly released devices, not to devices which were already on the market as of June 20).
> If they can be used like that, why couldn't they be used... as phones?
To facilitate planned obsolescence, manufacturers stop providing OS updates after a relatively short time. And then they cease providing security patches after a... still relatively short time.
If you unlock the device and install a custom ROM, which may or may not function adequately for you to begin with, then you're probably also compromising secure boot, which is a problem for the security model of how many people use phones -- and many apps simply refuse to work with this setup (whereas the obsolete OS with no security patches is considered fine, apparently).
I haven't bought a new phone in ages. I buy second-hand phones (making them often 1-2 years old), then I either resell them after I'm done (usually I cycle every 3-5 years), or I do precisely this - turning them into app controllers or wallets or something. Or games, etc. I keep two around in case one breaks.
People will usually only carry one phone, and they'll want one that is capable of running recent apps, storing their photos and music, and also taking high quality photos.
If you upgrade a phone to get a new one with a better camera, well, the processor on the old one is probably decent still, it could be a mini PC where the camera quality doesn't matter.
Also, it's a status symbol, you can't just _not_ upgrade.
It's certainly technically possible. Phone motherboards have limited wired IO, but USB host mode is enough for a lot of things.
The problem is how locked-down most phones are, and how hard it is to modify their software. Even for the Fairphone, you have to fill out a form on their site to get a bootloader unlock code, and they could close that form if they wished (see Asus). That all means starting an "ecosystem" of accessories and new non-phone software is costly and has an uncertain future.
Personally I think the biggest issue is the theft-prevention functionality that means a phone picked out of e-waste is basically bricked (without some exploit). There's companies making new motherboards out of salvaged Intel chipsets, I'm sure it would be possible to build a business around the reuse of phones, but right now there are just too many obstacles.
I think this could be solved with new legislation. At least here, doing anything with e-waste is already highly regulated. Giving registered e-waste processors the ability to unlock the bootloader of any device would reduce waste, and make unlocked phones something you could reliably buy in bulk. Then I think we could see the kind of aftermarket support for phones.
> Even for the Fairphone, you have to fill out a form on their site to get a bootloader unlock code, and they could close that form if they wished (see Asus).
You also need to sign up with Google to even get past the setup screen, and the phone needs to reach Google's servers and ask for permission to be used. Even if Fairphone would like to keep phones usable, Google can decide otherwise at any time.
I started a thread on this topic on their forums, and they seem to have no interest in fixing this. I wouldn't consider hardware sustainable if it needs to talk to Google's servers to be used and remains completely locked down otherwise. If you find one of these devices in a drawer in 15 years, and Google has changed their server's API, then the phone is as usable as any other brand
(nitpick: you have to "enter a contractual agreement" with Google, and not create an account. Folks on the forums seemed to be obsessed with the choice of word around this, although practically, it makes no difference).
For what you say, the most important is that the USB Type C connector of the phone must not be an antediluvian USB 2.0, but it must be an USB 3.0 or better, and also supporting DisplayPort.
For such phones, using any kind of peripherals, including external monitors, network interfaces or docking stations becomes possible.
There are relatively cheap smartphones with such USB ports, e.g. around $400 from Motorola, but the majority of the smartphones, including many of the most expensive, for which such limitations are inexcusable, are limited to a USB 2.0 interface, which is almost useless today.
While this Fairphone seems to have good specifications otherwise, there is no word about its USB Type C connector.
I am no longer willing to ever spend money on a smartphone that does not support at least USB 3.0 and DisplayPort.
EDIT:
Looking now on Gsmarena at Fairphone 5, I see that it had an adequate USB 3.0/DisplayPort. I have not noticed this before, because when searching for possible upgrades I was not looking to smartphones with CPUs as ancient as those of Fairphone 5.
Hopefully Fairphone 6 will retain the USB interface of its predecessor. This, coupled with a relatively up-to-date mid-range Qualcomm SoC and with a reasonable price for what it offers, can make it an interesting choice.
I feel that adding new hardware to old hardware might just be compounding the waste. We can slow down the obsolescence, but flash wear is a real issue after a few years; that's caused a few phone replacements in my family.
Heck, even reusing furniture in Western economies can be difficult, because the cost of handling it can easily exceed its value. It sort of survives in charity and antique shops, but only for the nicer items.
This does not scale at all. For hobbyist with no kids, sure, spend your time turning old phone for some fancy doorbell, etc. But for normals? Who would maintain such equipment, who would be in charge of testing if the battery will not get overheated once the new device stays for longer time in place X? Who would maintain and support such devices. I don't want to service myself my media player.
Sure but if old phones could be used like a really powerful raspberry pi (and they are really much more powerful, at least the high end) then the resale value would go up and more people would sell theirs to nerds rather than throwing it away. Still a net positive IMO
You can connect any peripherals including keyboard and mouse using usb-c hub. There are hubs that support external power available already so you can simultaneously charge the phone. I do sometimes use my fairphone with external keyboard case that way. Yes I would like higher quality one that better fits the phone, but I think that would be niche/bespoke expensive product.
When unscrewed, users are likely to be greeted with an option to remove the battery as well as it isn’t attached to the device with the help of glue but rather with additional screws.
What a horrible state of things that "not gluing the battery in place but screwing it in" is considered an improvement. IMHO smartphones have been on a horrible decline ever since ~2016. Before then, most Androids had [1] easily replaceable battery, no tools required at all; [2] microSD slot; [3] headphone jack; [4] (many) dual SIM; [5] (many cheaper models) easily rooted or unlocked by default. Now all we get are faster CPUs, more (non-expandable) storage, and far too many cameras.
I'd rather my phone be more robust than worry about unscrewing a couple more screws when I need to replace the battery (hopefully a rare occurrence anyway). I don't know anyone that carried around spare batteries like in that ad, so although a good ad it doesn't really speak to customer usage.
I'd also like my phone to be as-waterproof-as-possible, and am willing to sacrifice a back that comes open without any screws or similar.
FairPhone used to be a manufacturer still doing the right things. My FP3 has all of that, including an official guide for unlocking the bootloader. At least they've kept their promises regarding updates, because I won't be buying their newer phones.
I find this comment really irritating, sorry. This is a thread about the upcoming fairphone, with people praising things done right.
Your comment feel needlessly provocative with no information other than your negative opinion. You've implied Fairphone have turned crap, whilst mentioning a bunch of good stuff they've done, and then how you won't be buying their phones anymore.
Seriously, what was the point of this comment, what were you trying to achieve or communicate? Is that fairphone are rubbish? If so, you haven't said how or why, other than cryptic hints that promises might not have been kept.
This feels like an engagement bait comment, and I can't help but engage to say that.
The original Fairphone was basically just a branded version of the generic common Android of the time (MT6589 reference design --- I have an unbranded one that looks very similar but with a better screen and cameras), so they were "doing the right things" like everyone else.
There were tons of these little-known companies making very similar phones at the time. Unfortunately most of them disappeared within the next few years. Hence 2016 as the year I mentioned of when things started going downhill noticeably.
I loved older phones where you could just pop or slide off the back and replace the battery. So many people carry around portable battery packs to recharge which is large, heavy and clunky (you need to hold these two devices while the phone charges). I used to just carry a spare battery and could do a swap for an instant full charge in about the same amount of time it takes most people to get out and plug in their battery pack.
I don’t see why I should care that the battery is glued in? It helps keep the battery stable with minimal overhead, and it’s still fairly easy to replace. Apple has even made improvements to make it even easier to remove glued batteries, not that it was all that hard before. Doing excess engineering to make it easier to replace something which I might replace once in the lifetime of the phone doesn’t make sense.
The old use case of wanting to easily swap batteries to keep the phone going isn’t something people care about anymore since we got a billion options for battery banks that works for all the USB-C devices we have.
Nobody cares about headphone jack anymore. It’s dead. Get over it. Why stick a crappy DAC and a bad and single-purpose bulky port in a device where space is critical, when 99% of users are not going to use it? Just stick a USB-C adapter on your headphones. Then you have a choice in DAC. I would much rather have two USB-C ports than a headphone jack.
Was lucky enough to get my Fairphone 4 on sale, but I'd happily pay full price now - even though the Fairphones are pricey for the specs, unless you absolutely need 24 cores etc. I'd say they are worth it, knowing the company is at least trying to improve the parts supply chain, and knowing you stand a chance of fixing the devices yourself (luckily I've only had to replace the USB-C port, which was trivial)
About the only thing I'd ding Fairphone on is not communicating earlier that they were having trouble getting Android 14 out to the FP4s, but the security patches have been consistent.
(Okay I'm also dinging them on getting rid of the headphone jack, yes I know it's a lost cause... )
The removal of the phone jack is so obviously planned obsolescence, it is ironic that this project for sustainability follows the trend.
Wired headphones still have better sound quality. Don't need charging. Don't break with software update. But because of that it means less consumption.
Think about how insane it is that companies can remove the phone jack and glue in the battery with the very obvious goal of planned obsolescence. And this is legal.
No, that’s not planned obsolescence. Why would it become obsolete faster due to the lack of a phone jack?
Not delivering updates, that’s planned obsolescence.
I do agree however, that a jack is nice. Wired USB-C headphone do exist though, if you insist on wired.I am not an audiophile, wouldn’t that provide an even better sound quality potentially (digital to analog conversion happens later, not distortions due to cables for example)?
I don't think it's about planned obsolescence. It's about cutting costs and having one less hole water can get in.
Also wired headphones are a very niche market. If you care so much there are wireless DACs that can feed your wired headphones better than any phone in history.
> Wired headphones still have better sound quality.
High-grade studio quality wired headphones have better quality than wireless ones. But anywhere lower than the highest tiers, they're both in the same ballpark.
For the devices used by 999‰ of the people, the difference is unnoticeable.
> Don't break with software update.
Why would headphones break when you upgrade your phone? It sounds to me like your phone broke. And an audio jack can also stop working with a botched software update.
I've been using cellular phones since 2004. I've never used a headphone jack. Most people haven't either. Sure, some people would use it, and some people would use a DisplayPort connector if present (I would), but it's hard to justify putting one in every single phone when an adapter is so cheap.
Shipping a 3.5mm audio jack on every single phone in the world is more wasteful than just manufacturing an adapter for people who actually need it.
After years of a Fairbuds XL (never again!) and Bose QC for my Zoom sessions, I've ordered a Sony MDR-7506 because it does not need to be charged, and bluetooth doesn't need to be reconnected etc. Hurray for headphone jacks.
Two yen: buy Sony phones before Xperia gets shutdown. Sony obsesses about sound quality to the extent that they try to develop specialized solder materials (!) for the DAC-Jack pathway.
Bonus: Sony's AOSP program also releases images, and even oddballs like Sailfish release images spec. for Sony devices.
I would pay $2000 without a second of hesitation, if that's what it took, for an Android phone with
* headphone jack
* usbc port
* removable, large battery
* under 5 inch screen (with phone body size to match)
* dual sim
* sd card slot
* cameras just good enough to take pictures of license plates on illegally parked cars
* 5g antenna
I don't care if it needs to be hella thick to accomplish this, I don't care if the screen is OLED or has a >60hz refresh rate, I don't care about telescopic cameras or faceid or anything like that. I just want a small fat phone that I can plug my IEMs into and use as a wifi tether for my laptop without the battery dying in a couple hours.
> The removal of the phone jack is so obviously planned obsolescence
I'll keep repeating it; I worked in a hardware company (and one with very toxic upper management) and really, I don't buy the "planned obsolescence" for most products.
Employees are usually not villains (I know, it happens, as proven by Meta recently where engineers essentially built a malware into Meta's apps, and as proven by printers - if that's still the case, I don't own one). Most of the time they are not.
What happens most of the time is more likely "premature obsolescence": the product could have been engineered to last for 10 years, but it would have taken more development time and it would have cost more, so the company chose not to invest there. Regulations enforce a warranty period, so the company optimises around that. But it's not the same as planned obsolescence.
The result is the same: we need regulations that set the framework into which companies optimise. But the intention is different.
Also specifically for the jack, the reality is that nobody cares. You want a phone with a jack? Congrats, you're part of a small minority (don't worry, I am, too). How does it feel? :-)
My headphone cables (usually Sennheiser CX 300 II In-ear) would break consistently within about 2 years. Airpods have been going strong for much longer than that. I use my AirPods with my iPads, my Linux Laptop, my Kids' Android tablet.
Expensive yes, but planned obsolescence? Meh.. I also got an (Apple branded even) USB-C to headphone jack plug which also work flawlessly, so I really don't see the issue here.
I've replaced the USB-C port on a few Samsung devices as well, recently a Note 10 Lite (my second, I loved that phone enough to replace it with the same model). It was trivial, even opening the back case was not too difficult. And the battery was right there had I wanted to replace it as well.
These things are not as difficult as tech writers make them out to be.
Not really a lost cause in general, there are a bunch of regular phones that have a headphone jack. But fairphone seems unwilling to listen to all the feedback they are getting telling them this is a blocker, so yes, in that way it is a lost cause there.
I regret buying FP4 too. Unfortunately the hardware is very sturdy and does not break justifying buying a different one. But the software feels half ready in a few critical parts (GPS and phone/sms in my case) and the support is non existent (very bad) for my two issues I had (still have).
I am still waiting for Fairphone and Graphene OS collaboration. This is match made in heaven.
Any Fairphone/GrapheneOS developer reading this? Just do it, document if something is not secure enough for you, but do it. Nothing to think about, you fit together like hand and a glove and any seconds thoughts are depriving the planet of THE PHONE!
Pick the cash we will throw at you and make second generation with the cpu GrapheneOS wants, that will make the /r/GrapheneOS members eyes shine, drooling and crying of joy at the same time. +throw them in a few hardware switches for camera, mic, connectivity,... disabling. No need to wait to be perfect in first iteration (and due to that craziness and perfectionism will never happen), to gain the possibility to be perfect in second or third.
I would love so much to stop buying Google Pixel phones just to install Graphene OS and protect myself from Google and its ecosystem, it seems so counterproductive.
>Fairphones consistently doesn't support a quarter of what graphene os requires
I expect it's not just a matter of feature support: Fairphone in general seems rather horrible on security, doing things like using test keys for production signatures [1].
This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. With money they will get (I suspect there will be quite a bit less pixels sold) they can make a new phone that will have all the bells and whistles GrapheneOS wants and on the other side, Fairphone developers will figure out it is $$$ worthy to do it.
GrapheneOS has bunch of requirements that are expensive while Fairphone has zero chance to figure out, if investing would make any economical sense, while their normal users dont really care about that security but might regarding privacy. This is a stale-mate position.
Found info about GrapheneOS installations, 250k users(1). Lets say 25% are on old pixels. This is 60k sold pixels.
I recently suggested that GrapheneOS support devices with average security on Mastodon. Much like yourself, I think "moderately okay security" is better than "just use Google's spyware infested OS".
The GrapheneOS folks replied in disagreement, insisting that this is a terrible idea because security would be less than perfect. They then started making up stories about me and throwing around unfounded accusations. I don't trust them in the slightest, and strongly recommend staying away from them.
> I recently suggested that GrapheneOS support devices with average security on Mastodon. Much like yourself, I think "moderately okay security" is better than "just use Google's spyware infested OS".
For most use cases, like mine, I agree. But I understand GrapheneOS disagreeing with that statement. "average security" is not their goal, nor the use case they are working for. GrapheneOS' focus is security. They just happened to make the best AOSP version there is out there. So lots of us wish they better support our use cases disregarding the use case they work for. But they obviously don't want to spend resources on it, and I'd assume they wouldn't even accept extra resources to do those things, as it would dilute their "most secure mobile OS" brand by having less secure versions of it.
For those of us who don't need the best security, another fork of AOSP that incorporates many of the features GOS has, like sandboxed Google Play and contact and storage scopes would do. But we can't expect GOS to be the one doing that.
I'm the community manager for GrapheneOS. That isn't what happened, and it is very weird to not only see that on Mastodon, but also that you're going around saying it in other places, too.
People involved with the project you're working on have a history of making attacks on GrapheneOS, but what I mostly want to focus on is your suggestion because my goal here isn't to get in a back-and-forth with you or convince you, but rather provide context for others reading this.
Our hardware requirements are not arbitrary. They are what we need in order to be able to provide usable security to people who depend on it. There's no "average security" for devices that are missing patches for known vulnerabilities for months. That's a non-starter, not something imperfect that an OEM can work on improving. Multiple OEMs have reached out to us and actually want to do the work of improving their devices so that we can use them to provide security for people. It's very weird for people to be fixated on this idea that GrapheneOS should instead be supporting devices which can't actually provide what the OS is known for.
Without a secure element, a 6 digit PIN is no longer secure and can be bruteforced. What average person is using a long diceware passphrase to unlock their phone? Our device requirements are reasonable, and can be found at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. Every time people ask us to support another device, we have to point to that explain that we cannot, because to date, no other devices meet them, and those who do purposefully go out of their way to cripple third-party OS support (Samsung chief among them). Then, we ask people which of our requirements we should drop in order to support that other device, and why people think that requirement is unreasonable. To date, we have received no convincing reply to that.
You think we're chasing "perfection" but Pixels are just the best that exists right now and is extremely far from perfect. Our requirements aren't a wishlist, they're based on what is possible and reasonable today, not in the future.
That's like suggesting to Formula 1 World Champion to accept not being at the pinnacle of excellence and despite their talent to voluntarily move to a mid tier team because having a moderately okay car is better than not being in the sport.
Same for cycling, tell last years Tour de France winner to stop using that light high end carbon fibre bike and just use that heavy 1960s steel bike instead, they both have wheels and get you from the start to the finish after all. Don't aspire to be more than average or the best. Just settle.
GrapheneOS is aiming at the best possible security, so they won't compromise. CalyxOS and /e/OS run on FairPhones (though it seems like /e/OS is more into privacy and less into security).
There is no alternative. /e/ and others dont even come close.
Security is one thing, the privacy they(GrapheneOS) provide is another. You can have privacy without every detail of security they require. While they refuse to provide privacy without security.
Thats why I buy Pixels and feel more and more dirty each time I do it.
Had sailfish in between but that is another set of problems, Jolla failing to realize, they need to have strong compatibility Android layer (to use everyday stuff like bluetooth - in my case for paying public transport) until there is enough software for Sailfish. In any case, Sailfish is my FAR prefered option, over GrapheneOS. But unfortunately the spin of the world and my wishes are not aligned.
It's such a shame, vision-wise the GrapheneOS crew must be much closer to the FairPhone team than they are to Google and Samsung, one would guess... But the GrapheneOS people find security tech (such as secure enclaves) and update cycle very important. After the bad Pixel news, they find Samsung to be the best fit: [1]
I would (as many here) also hope that they could somehow make the FairPhone crew step up in their security practices, help them do it. They would be the golden combo, except perhaps for things like camera quality and raw speed/AI chips. And possible the niche is just to small to be profitable.
But a man can dream... I'd pay 1.5 to 2x normal price for a FairPhone/GrapheneOS combi, it would align with my values in almost all dimensions. And then I'd buy a Pebble and just be happy.
I really don't know what to do when my iPhone 12 mini dies. I do like the iPhone, but I also liked my OnePlus3 with LineageOS. I was originally planning on a Pixel/GrapheneOS after this phone, but that dream has shatter I think...
Why phones are so huge nowadays? How are you people carrying them? Oh how I wish for a compact sized phone, something like iPhone 13 mini, but with USB-C connector. And those camera bumps, don't get me started on those. If you cannot fit camera into phone, why not make whole device a bit thicker.
These are not smartphones. You cannot do anything with them except phone, SMS, some alarms and make pictures with very crappy quality.
So these are effectively just phones, like 20 years ago. They are not extensible by any app, just what the manufacturer adds for factory provided programs.
I would be small (lightweight) phones. I cannot bare these 180–220g devices. If I want something heavy I buy a tablet.
I am still angry at Apple for dropping the mini line. I know it wasn’t popular, but if there’s anyone that can afford having a line that “only” sells a few hundred thousand units it’s Apple. I guess that’s what happens when the company is run by a bean counter :(
My Samsung A40 is less than 8mm thick. It has a FullHD display, 440dpi sharpness, weighs only 140g and is less than 145mm in length. The cameras support 16Mpx back and 25MPx front (not that it’s needed much). The quality is not the best, but very suitable.
It has support for fingerprint, microsd, 3.5mm jack – everything necessary. (Only thing missing is esim, but that can be added by an adapter.)
So it IS possible. The manufacturers just don’t WANT.
Phones that were biggest size/weight only six or seven years ago are now not even available anymore. Why? I cannot imagine that all(!) people want phones that now weigh at least 180g (most even 200+g) and have huge displays.
Do people need to play games all the time? I don’t.
I just want a phone to support me with some helpful apps like train/bus timetables, play music, do a quick internet search, make a picture, do alarms and notify about things. Nothing fancy, and nothing where a really need a 7" display nor a 5Ah battery.
When my current phone (Samsung A40) will die someday, I will be very sad as there is nothing today even remotely comparable to the compactness and usefulness of this device.
I love concept but the only thing that's keeping me from buying it is that it's too big. They don't make small phones anymore:( the last perfect model i had a chanc3 to have was huawei p10- a perfect 5.1 display
I feel you. A repairable phone that's 5 inches would be so perfect. I miss my the Xperia X Compact so bad, I loved that phone, I had Lineage OS on it and it was great. It wasn't easy to repair though.
Now I've got a Jelly Star, and it's pretty much the same problems, plus no updates in a while.
GrapheneOS support for Fairphone is unlikely to ever happen. Their hardware is too insecure to satisfy GOS's reasonable requirements [1] and have stated that they aren't interested in improving it [2]. Software is also lacking and they've partnered with Murena [3], who has been slinging shit at GOS [4].
> On a more positive note, due to the AOSP/Pixel drama there now is a real possibility a different major OEM will be supported
I really do not know which other major OEM other than exynos-based samsung that comes near GOS' checklist, but here I am hoping if he is talking about Nothing phone.
That's excellent news that they're partnering with an OEM to make something. Here's hoping it's someone like Framework that has sustainability in mind as well.
Their phones are sold in the USA through Murena. I've bought a fairphone 4 through them. It was preloaded with eOS but I loaded calyxOS on it, which is similar to GrapheneOS.
Readit News
I can't even imagine why they decided to keep the fingerprint sensor on the front but add a whole separate sensor on the back.
Apple’s declining software quality and walled garden incline me more and more towards ditching iPhone for GrapheneOS or a dumb phone like the Punkt MP; I find far more joy reading on an eReader, taking photos with a camera, or taking notes in my notebook than I do using the phone for any of those.
Especially for notes, keeping journals for the last few years, I find such peace and even connection with myself and my thoughts in my journals; I write down passages from books that are meaningful to me, and seeing my own handwriting, the ink I wrote it in, even the shading in the ink – it all adds up to a deeply meaningful, physical experience.
The answer is not more phone, it’s less!
It fits perfectly on my dwarf hands, fingerprint for security and just the apps to get things done.
Credit where it’s due to Apple for still supporting the phone with SW updates.
Also, my current phone phone has it on the back and I can only configure one fingerprint, so if for some reason I am holding it in my left hand I am out of luck.
Fwiw, it I'm at my desk it'd usually be on its face for flip to silent. Then I pick up and it's natural. Or I'd be using scrcpy because if I'm in front of a computer why are my hands moving from the keyboard? I guess I'll compromise with the mouse lol
Single fingerprint registration is weird. Iirc I could do 2 on my pixel 2
Let's also stick an extra USB-C port on the side of the phone so that you can charge from whichever port is more convenient at the time. Or use an accessory like wired headphones and charge at the same time without carrying around a USB hub. Or if one breaks (charging ports are one of the most common things to fail on the phone) you can continue using the other one (either temporarily until the other is repaired or indefinitely).
Not every phone needs to be "opinionated" ...
Who came up with that idea?
I rarely saw my lockscreen
But when I switched to the pixel 8 with a front reader I always saw it
Now on my iPhone I see it frequently and it doesn't land when wearing a mask, when I'm talking, when I'm not looking (I could blind navigate my phone), or when it's just dark. So it just feels painfully slow in comparison...
Nothing has beaten the magical experience of a back fingerprint reader and I think this is why so many of us miss it. But I'm sure it's one of those things you'd have had to use to really feel the magic
It doesn't have to be for everyone but there's enough phones that the option should be available...
It's nice that is works for you, but it really sucks when it fails as there's no other biometric alternative. And changing their whole ecosystem just to get working biometrics is a high bar for many.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Makeup/comments/wfjy5x/apple_id_doe...
1) I frequently unlock my phone while it's laying flat on the desk a good distance from my face. The camera can't see me, and certainly not well enough to identify me.
2) I don't believe that you can add a second FaceID. Currently I have a few fingers added to my TouchID, including my wifes index finger, allowing her to unlock my phone.
Besides, fingerprint is even faster. You can unlock the device right as you grab it out of your pocket. You don't even have to look at it.
I last tried the iPhone 16. It's a huge downgrade from the last iPhone SE.
-Exhausted Apple user also wanting easier authentication
https://xkcd.com/538/
Apple best product is marketing by far; this is just one of the results.
I have been using Face ID since the iPhone X and agree that it sucks. It doesn't even really solve the "problems" I thought it would solve (unlock while cooking or other activities where your hands are dirty) because you need to look at the thing in a particular way and you need clean hands to interact with the phone anyway.
It is especially annoying because the design of the notch/dynamic island is just terrible/stupid.
There are days where I get so many misses that I feel like disabling the thing entirely since I have to use the passcode so much anyway. I was already very skeptical of Touch ID but Face ID is just worse and more expensive for not much benefits.
This is the issue with technology nowadays, most of the real "problems" have been solved so tech companies come up with all kinds of nonsense to sell newer and shinier stuff. At some point a screwdriver is a screwdriver and a smartphone is a smartphone, we just need it to be of good quality and last long, that's it. But this does not make for "infinite" growth so here we are...
You can also do this with under-screen fingerprint readers which are excellent these days.
I'd love to use the old phone for so many reasons, but the lack of updates has rendered it useless. No Lineage or Graphene for that one either.
Plus, as others are pointing out, there's additional benefits
I loved the rear fingerprint reader on my old Nexus 5X.
Seconded, vehemently.-
My humble, tiny, circa-2014 Elephone E1 (RIP) was unsurpassed.-
Me wonders if the "onscreen reader" is not an integration-cost cutting measure, as it saves one part?
I much prefer having it on a physical home button. You can still feel a dent, but it takes even less effort to reach for it with your thumb.
(Well, I think the Pixel never had a home button, and by now it's unfortunately disappeared from other phones too...)
I think, even having a stable physical design would help tremendously: imagine each new Pixel with the same standard screen size and casing attachment. Google could still change the overall outer feel as long as it fits the inner latching mechanism.
Then building a third party back panel with a fingerprint reader becomes somewhat realistic. And we don't need Google to build an ecosystem, just stop doing their minuscule size tweaks every year and stabilize the attachment mechanism. Just that.
Ultrasonic ftw.
I've had my old iPhone 7+ turn into a charged brick multiple times in the rain. Never happened with the faceID phones.
Big +1. Face ID fails way more than Touch ID ever did. I know you couldn't your finger with wet hands or gloves, but that didn't come up all that much.
Face ID fails multiple times per day, every day. I can't unlock my phone well in bed, while brushing teeth, while it's sitting on a table not directly in front of me, if I'm in direct sunlight, in a car mount, etc. The only time it's more useful is when I'm already using the phone and need to auth for an app (bank, 1Password, etc). Then it's seamless. It just doesn't make sense as an unlock mechanism, IMO. iPad has the same problem - I can't unlock it if it's on the couch next to me without picking it up and holding it in front of my face.
Face ID would make a lot of sense on a laptop, which is always used in basically ideal conditions for unlocking: straight on view, probably inside, always centered on my face.
I'd love Touch ID on a phone's lock button, but that's not an option. And I'm worried that if it was an option, it would be relegated to the budget phones (like it is on ipads).
Because it works for authentication too. My password manager just... automatically authenticates me without me having to tap a thing. It recognizes the login form on the validated domain, it scans my face, it fills in my info. Same as paying with Wallet, I just slide up the credit card I want to use and it scans my face as I hold it against the reader.
And I'm not always pulling the phone out of my pocket, I'm picking it up off the table. I grab it by the edges, I'm not putting my finger on its back.
It's terrible for people who put their phone on their desk, in a stand, or on a wireless charger while they are working.
Edit: oooof I missed the point entirely. Sorry.
Deleted Comment
Because good luck using that fingerprint sensor while wearing gloves, e.g. during garden work, while on a motorcycle ride, or in winter.
I do hope we have a mutual understanding that we're talking about something subjective. Something that isn't the best option for everyone. FaceID, fingerprint, or whatever. There's no one size fits all...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44362879
If they can be used like that, why couldn't they be used... as phones?
Changing phone every two years is not sustainable, even if the old phone is used as an IoT wall terminal: it's still "consuming" one phone every two years. In a sense, an old phone in a drawer uses less energy than an old phone staying powered to control a lightbulb.
> planned obsolescence
Nitpick: I like to call it "premature obsolescence". Planned obsolescence is the idea of engineering the product to not last more than some time. I think nowadays it's often not the case; rather we engineer the product to last for the time of the warranty (1-2 years) and not more. And a product dying after 1 year is "premature", even though it was not actively engineered for that.
(Applies to newly released devices, not to devices which were already on the market as of June 20).
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/new-eu-rules...
To facilitate planned obsolescence, manufacturers stop providing OS updates after a relatively short time. And then they cease providing security patches after a... still relatively short time.
If you unlock the device and install a custom ROM, which may or may not function adequately for you to begin with, then you're probably also compromising secure boot, which is a problem for the security model of how many people use phones -- and many apps simply refuse to work with this setup (whereas the obsolete OS with no security patches is considered fine, apparently).
This isn't hard. And it saves a ton of money.
Deleted Comment
If you upgrade a phone to get a new one with a better camera, well, the processor on the old one is probably decent still, it could be a mini PC where the camera quality doesn't matter.
Also, it's a status symbol, you can't just _not_ upgrade.
The problem is how locked-down most phones are, and how hard it is to modify their software. Even for the Fairphone, you have to fill out a form on their site to get a bootloader unlock code, and they could close that form if they wished (see Asus). That all means starting an "ecosystem" of accessories and new non-phone software is costly and has an uncertain future.
Personally I think the biggest issue is the theft-prevention functionality that means a phone picked out of e-waste is basically bricked (without some exploit). There's companies making new motherboards out of salvaged Intel chipsets, I'm sure it would be possible to build a business around the reuse of phones, but right now there are just too many obstacles.
I think this could be solved with new legislation. At least here, doing anything with e-waste is already highly regulated. Giving registered e-waste processors the ability to unlock the bootloader of any device would reduce waste, and make unlocked phones something you could reliably buy in bulk. Then I think we could see the kind of aftermarket support for phones.
You also need to sign up with Google to even get past the setup screen, and the phone needs to reach Google's servers and ask for permission to be used. Even if Fairphone would like to keep phones usable, Google can decide otherwise at any time.
I started a thread on this topic on their forums, and they seem to have no interest in fixing this. I wouldn't consider hardware sustainable if it needs to talk to Google's servers to be used and remains completely locked down otherwise. If you find one of these devices in a drawer in 15 years, and Google has changed their server's API, then the phone is as usable as any other brand
(nitpick: you have to "enter a contractual agreement" with Google, and not create an account. Folks on the forums seemed to be obsessed with the choice of word around this, although practically, it makes no difference).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43230764
This said, I have a Fairphone 3 and it is still usable.
For such phones, using any kind of peripherals, including external monitors, network interfaces or docking stations becomes possible.
There are relatively cheap smartphones with such USB ports, e.g. around $400 from Motorola, but the majority of the smartphones, including many of the most expensive, for which such limitations are inexcusable, are limited to a USB 2.0 interface, which is almost useless today.
While this Fairphone seems to have good specifications otherwise, there is no word about its USB Type C connector.
I am no longer willing to ever spend money on a smartphone that does not support at least USB 3.0 and DisplayPort.
EDIT:
Looking now on Gsmarena at Fairphone 5, I see that it had an adequate USB 3.0/DisplayPort. I have not noticed this before, because when searching for possible upgrades I was not looking to smartphones with CPUs as ancient as those of Fairphone 5.
Hopefully Fairphone 6 will retain the USB interface of its predecessor. This, coupled with a relatively up-to-date mid-range Qualcomm SoC and with a reasonable price for what it offers, can make it an interesting choice.
Heck, even reusing furniture in Western economies can be difficult, because the cost of handling it can easily exceed its value. It sort of survives in charity and antique shops, but only for the nicer items.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nintendo-Switch-Pro-kit-transf...
What a horrible state of things that "not gluing the battery in place but screwing it in" is considered an improvement. IMHO smartphones have been on a horrible decline ever since ~2016. Before then, most Androids had [1] easily replaceable battery, no tools required at all; [2] microSD slot; [3] headphone jack; [4] (many) dual SIM; [5] (many cheaper models) easily rooted or unlocked by default. Now all we get are faster CPUs, more (non-expandable) storage, and far too many cameras.
There was also this memorable ad from Samsung: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hIoyb9L5g0
I'd rather my phone be more robust than worry about unscrewing a couple more screws when I need to replace the battery (hopefully a rare occurrence anyway). I don't know anyone that carried around spare batteries like in that ad, so although a good ad it doesn't really speak to customer usage.
I'd also like my phone to be as-waterproof-as-possible, and am willing to sacrifice a back that comes open without any screws or similar.
Waterproofing wasn't a feature people needed before the marketing told them they did.
Your comment feel needlessly provocative with no information other than your negative opinion. You've implied Fairphone have turned crap, whilst mentioning a bunch of good stuff they've done, and then how you won't be buying their phones anymore.
Seriously, what was the point of this comment, what were you trying to achieve or communicate? Is that fairphone are rubbish? If so, you haven't said how or why, other than cryptic hints that promises might not have been kept.
This feels like an engagement bait comment, and I can't help but engage to say that.
https://www.gizchina.com/2013/06/25/6-top-quad-core-mt6589-p...
There were tons of these little-known companies making very similar phones at the time. Unfortunately most of them disappeared within the next few years. Hence 2016 as the year I mentioned of when things started going downhill noticeably.
It's sad what kind of things are considered "features" these days.
The old use case of wanting to easily swap batteries to keep the phone going isn’t something people care about anymore since we got a billion options for battery banks that works for all the USB-C devices we have.
Nobody cares about headphone jack anymore. It’s dead. Get over it. Why stick a crappy DAC and a bad and single-purpose bulky port in a device where space is critical, when 99% of users are not going to use it? Just stick a USB-C adapter on your headphones. Then you have a choice in DAC. I would much rather have two USB-C ports than a headphone jack.
Dual SIM is also rapidly becoming obsolete.
Micro SD would be nice still, I’ll give you that.
About the only thing I'd ding Fairphone on is not communicating earlier that they were having trouble getting Android 14 out to the FP4s, but the security patches have been consistent.
(Okay I'm also dinging them on getting rid of the headphone jack, yes I know it's a lost cause... )
Wired headphones still have better sound quality. Don't need charging. Don't break with software update. But because of that it means less consumption.
Think about how insane it is that companies can remove the phone jack and glue in the battery with the very obvious goal of planned obsolescence. And this is legal.
Not delivering updates, that’s planned obsolescence.
I do agree however, that a jack is nice. Wired USB-C headphone do exist though, if you insist on wired.I am not an audiophile, wouldn’t that provide an even better sound quality potentially (digital to analog conversion happens later, not distortions due to cables for example)?
Also wired headphones are a very niche market. If you care so much there are wireless DACs that can feed your wired headphones better than any phone in history.
High-grade studio quality wired headphones have better quality than wireless ones. But anywhere lower than the highest tiers, they're both in the same ballpark.
For the devices used by 999‰ of the people, the difference is unnoticeable.
> Don't break with software update.
Why would headphones break when you upgrade your phone? It sounds to me like your phone broke. And an audio jack can also stop working with a botched software update.
I've been using cellular phones since 2004. I've never used a headphone jack. Most people haven't either. Sure, some people would use it, and some people would use a DisplayPort connector if present (I would), but it's hard to justify putting one in every single phone when an adapter is so cheap.
Shipping a 3.5mm audio jack on every single phone in the world is more wasteful than just manufacturing an adapter for people who actually need it.
Bonus: Sony's AOSP program also releases images, and even oddballs like Sailfish release images spec. for Sony devices.
* headphone jack
* usbc port
* removable, large battery
* under 5 inch screen (with phone body size to match)
* dual sim
* sd card slot
* cameras just good enough to take pictures of license plates on illegally parked cars
* 5g antenna
I don't care if it needs to be hella thick to accomplish this, I don't care if the screen is OLED or has a >60hz refresh rate, I don't care about telescopic cameras or faceid or anything like that. I just want a small fat phone that I can plug my IEMs into and use as a wifi tether for my laptop without the battery dying in a couple hours.
I'll keep repeating it; I worked in a hardware company (and one with very toxic upper management) and really, I don't buy the "planned obsolescence" for most products.
Employees are usually not villains (I know, it happens, as proven by Meta recently where engineers essentially built a malware into Meta's apps, and as proven by printers - if that's still the case, I don't own one). Most of the time they are not.
What happens most of the time is more likely "premature obsolescence": the product could have been engineered to last for 10 years, but it would have taken more development time and it would have cost more, so the company chose not to invest there. Regulations enforce a warranty period, so the company optimises around that. But it's not the same as planned obsolescence.
The result is the same: we need regulations that set the framework into which companies optimise. But the intention is different.
Also specifically for the jack, the reality is that nobody cares. You want a phone with a jack? Congrats, you're part of a small minority (don't worry, I am, too). How does it feel? :-)
Expensive yes, but planned obsolescence? Meh.. I also got an (Apple branded even) USB-C to headphone jack plug which also work flawlessly, so I really don't see the issue here.
I don't know about that, I still get analog noise all the time. Maybe it's just due to using a cheap DAC?
They also sell wireless earbuds and headphones with replaceable batteries.
I think the solution is to ship wireless earphones with a usb-c capability, and ship smartphones with multiple usb ports.
I could probably use it for a few more years but I may upgrade to the 6 if the speakers/microphone are better (and to support the company).
I don't get this. Isn't the whole concept of the company modular parts? Shouldn't you be able to put the better speakers in your existing phone?
These things are not as difficult as tech writers make them out to be.
Either I will have to buy Xperias or stock up on old Pixel 4 phones.
A shame really.
I regret buying FP4 too. Unfortunately the hardware is very sturdy and does not break justifying buying a different one. But the software feels half ready in a few critical parts (GPS and phone/sms in my case) and the support is non existent (very bad) for my two issues I had (still have).
Any Fairphone/GrapheneOS developer reading this? Just do it, document if something is not secure enough for you, but do it. Nothing to think about, you fit together like hand and a glove and any seconds thoughts are depriving the planet of THE PHONE!
Pick the cash we will throw at you and make second generation with the cpu GrapheneOS wants, that will make the /r/GrapheneOS members eyes shine, drooling and crying of joy at the same time. +throw them in a few hardware switches for camera, mic, connectivity,... disabling. No need to wait to be perfect in first iteration (and due to that craziness and perfectionism will never happen), to gain the possibility to be perfect in second or third.
I would love so much to stop buying Google Pixel phones just to install Graphene OS and protect myself from Google and its ecosystem, it seems so counterproductive.
https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
Unless Fairphone becomes significantly better in their security and update policy and integrate a whole lot of new features it's not gonna happen.
I expect it's not just a matter of feature support: Fairphone in general seems rather horrible on security, doing things like using test keys for production signatures [1].
[1]: https://forum.fairphone.com/t/bootloader-avb-keys-used-in-ro...
GrapheneOS has bunch of requirements that are expensive while Fairphone has zero chance to figure out, if investing would make any economical sense, while their normal users dont really care about that security but might regarding privacy. This is a stale-mate position.
Found info about GrapheneOS installations, 250k users(1). Lets say 25% are on old pixels. This is 60k sold pixels.
All Fairphones sold by 2022 were 400k(2).
1. 2024, https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/12281-how-many-grapheneos-u...
2. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone
The GrapheneOS folks replied in disagreement, insisting that this is a terrible idea because security would be less than perfect. They then started making up stories about me and throwing around unfounded accusations. I don't trust them in the slightest, and strongly recommend staying away from them.
For most use cases, like mine, I agree. But I understand GrapheneOS disagreeing with that statement. "average security" is not their goal, nor the use case they are working for. GrapheneOS' focus is security. They just happened to make the best AOSP version there is out there. So lots of us wish they better support our use cases disregarding the use case they work for. But they obviously don't want to spend resources on it, and I'd assume they wouldn't even accept extra resources to do those things, as it would dilute their "most secure mobile OS" brand by having less secure versions of it.
For those of us who don't need the best security, another fork of AOSP that incorporates many of the features GOS has, like sandboxed Google Play and contact and storage scopes would do. But we can't expect GOS to be the one doing that.
People involved with the project you're working on have a history of making attacks on GrapheneOS, but what I mostly want to focus on is your suggestion because my goal here isn't to get in a back-and-forth with you or convince you, but rather provide context for others reading this.
Our hardware requirements are not arbitrary. They are what we need in order to be able to provide usable security to people who depend on it. There's no "average security" for devices that are missing patches for known vulnerabilities for months. That's a non-starter, not something imperfect that an OEM can work on improving. Multiple OEMs have reached out to us and actually want to do the work of improving their devices so that we can use them to provide security for people. It's very weird for people to be fixated on this idea that GrapheneOS should instead be supporting devices which can't actually provide what the OS is known for.
Without a secure element, a 6 digit PIN is no longer secure and can be bruteforced. What average person is using a long diceware passphrase to unlock their phone? Our device requirements are reasonable, and can be found at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. Every time people ask us to support another device, we have to point to that explain that we cannot, because to date, no other devices meet them, and those who do purposefully go out of their way to cripple third-party OS support (Samsung chief among them). Then, we ask people which of our requirements we should drop in order to support that other device, and why people think that requirement is unreasonable. To date, we have received no convincing reply to that.
You think we're chasing "perfection" but Pixels are just the best that exists right now and is extremely far from perfect. Our requirements aren't a wishlist, they're based on what is possible and reasonable today, not in the future.
That sounds oddly similar with Louis Rossmann's video when in disagreement with some (the?) project owner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0
GrapheneOS is aiming at the best possible security, so they won't compromise. CalyxOS and /e/OS run on FairPhones (though it seems like /e/OS is more into privacy and less into security).
Security is one thing, the privacy they(GrapheneOS) provide is another. You can have privacy without every detail of security they require. While they refuse to provide privacy without security.
Thats why I buy Pixels and feel more and more dirty each time I do it.
Had sailfish in between but that is another set of problems, Jolla failing to realize, they need to have strong compatibility Android layer (to use everyday stuff like bluetooth - in my case for paying public transport) until there is enough software for Sailfish. In any case, Sailfish is my FAR prefered option, over GrapheneOS. But unfortunately the spin of the world and my wishes are not aligned.
Make it small and I would buy 3.
It looks like they really won't though: [0]
It's such a shame, vision-wise the GrapheneOS crew must be much closer to the FairPhone team than they are to Google and Samsung, one would guess... But the GrapheneOS people find security tech (such as secure enclaves) and update cycle very important. After the bad Pixel news, they find Samsung to be the best fit: [1]
I would (as many here) also hope that they could somehow make the FairPhone crew step up in their security practices, help them do it. They would be the golden combo, except perhaps for things like camera quality and raw speed/AI chips. And possible the niche is just to small to be profitable.
But a man can dream... I'd pay 1.5 to 2x normal price for a FairPhone/GrapheneOS combi, it would align with my values in almost all dimensions. And then I'd buy a Pebble and just be happy.
I really don't know what to do when my iPhone 12 mini dies. I do like the iPhone, but I also liked my OnePlus3 with LineageOS. I was originally planning on a Pixel/GrapheneOS after this phone, but that dream has shatter I think...
[0] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721751616786103
[1] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721967328643999
Dead Comment
If you want a small phone, the best thing are flip-phones, there is tons of them now.
I would be small (lightweight) phones. I cannot bare these 180–220g devices. If I want something heavy I buy a tablet.
How can one buy what is not being manufactured?
The few small-ish phones that have existed have mostly been cheap and underpowered.
My Samsung A40 is less than 8mm thick. It has a FullHD display, 440dpi sharpness, weighs only 140g and is less than 145mm in length. The cameras support 16Mpx back and 25MPx front (not that it’s needed much). The quality is not the best, but very suitable.
It has support for fingerprint, microsd, 3.5mm jack – everything necessary. (Only thing missing is esim, but that can be added by an adapter.)
So it IS possible. The manufacturers just don’t WANT.
Phones that were biggest size/weight only six or seven years ago are now not even available anymore. Why? I cannot imagine that all(!) people want phones that now weigh at least 180g (most even 200+g) and have huge displays.
Do people need to play games all the time? I don’t. I just want a phone to support me with some helpful apps like train/bus timetables, play music, do a quick internet search, make a picture, do alarms and notify about things. Nothing fancy, and nothing where a really need a 7" display nor a 5Ah battery.
When my current phone (Samsung A40) will die someday, I will be very sad as there is nothing today even remotely comparable to the compactness and usefulness of this device.
>Framework-like upgradability / repairability / modularity
>Support for GrapheneOS
>Sold in USA
On a more positive note, due to the AOSP/Pixel drama there now is a real possibility a different major OEM will be supported: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114711328082841462
[1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
[2] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114733211017800480
[3] https://murena.com/
[4] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114235396540176085
Deleted Comment
I really do not know which other major OEM other than exynos-based samsung that comes near GOS' checklist, but here I am hoping if he is talking about Nothing phone.
https://murena.com/products/smartphones/
It also supports a lot of linux distributions, including UBPorts and postmarketOS.
I wish that they would just stick with one form factor and do the "framework computer" approach though.