• carrylex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Compared to the Fairphone 5 it has some improvements but also a few downsides:

    Pro:

    • It’s a bit smaller (~4mm) and lighter (~20g)
    • Slightly better camera (future tests will tell how much better)
    • 120 Hz display
    • More RAM and storage (although I feel that the previous 6GB/128GB option was also sufficient for most users)
    • WiFi 6E Tri-Band (however you will likely never need this speed)
    • Bluetooth 5.4
    • Slightly larger battery

    Con:

    • Backpanel now requires a screwdriver
    • Display has less resolution/PPI
    • Performance of processor will likely be nearly identical to predecessor (however it’s more efficient and modern)
    • Downgrade to USB 2
    • 600€

    My conclusion: Overall the improvements are ok, however just releasing the Fairphone 5 with a newer SoC might have been the better/more cost effective choice. Sacrificing display resolution for 120 Hz feels also quite wrong. 600€ is very pricy for a phone like this. Cutting some premium features away like the 120 Hz display or a bit of RAM and storage (that you can extend anyway with an SD card) might have saved enough to get the launch price down to somewhere near 500€ which would make it accessible for a wider audience.

    • carrylex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 minutes ago

      I also found out a few other things that have changed:

      • They now use Torx T5 screws
      • The backcover and battery are now fixed with these screws
      • The battery uses a dedicated connector
      • Parts of the backcover now require a pick
      • SIM/SD now sit at the bottom in a dedicated slot and don’t require the removal of the backcover.
      • The volume buttons got replaced by the “moments” button and are now on the left

      IMHO this is kind of a downgrade in repairability as you now need custom tools (not everyone has a T5 screwdriver at home). Moving the volume buttons to the other side is also kind of weird and unexpected as most (non Apple) phones have them on the right…

        • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          37 minutes ago

          Thanks for the link. I can’t necessarily agree that it’s low impact, transferring files at 2.0 speeds is brutal.

      • localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        The transfer speed over USB on mine probably doesn’t even pass USB 2 speeds anyway and I’ve had flagship phones in the past that were even slower over a cable. I guess if that’s still the case then there’s probably a good engineering argument to reduce complexity.

        • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          39 minutes ago

          Or there wasn’t good enough engineering to begin with to achieve usb 3 speeds. Seems like they should have got it right before using it as a reason to cripple the thing further.

        • carrylex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          I just checked my phone and the up/down speed for files is roughly 40MB/s despite having a USB 3 connection.

          USB 2 has a max. transfer rate (under optimal conditions) of 60MB/s, so I think when the phone storage improves a bit or the cable is a bit longer it will likely become a bottleneck.

          Also note that there are other applications than transfering files which might need more bandwidth.

          To be fair it really doesn’t make much of a difference but USB 3 is now the standard for a century and has been around since 2008 so I somewhere expect a 600€ phone to also have it.

    • kungen@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The extra RAM and storage probably increased the price much more than the screen upgrade.

    • Redex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

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

    • localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

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

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