I mean, I don't know their other practices, but the removal of the headphone jack is hardly green washing. I'd bet it actually is more sustainable to not include it tbh, plus it is likely more affordable. Beyond that, with just looking into it, as I expected, they're a more sustainable and repairable set of headphones compared to the rest of the market. Moreover, I highly doubt dropping the jack would drive folks to decide to buy these if they weren't already. They're not tiny earbuds. They're over the ear which is generally something folks buy when they actually are looking for them.
Sometimes accelerated progress can lead to waste, but holding onto legacy tech for too long can also lead to waste.
The big issue with removing the headphones jack is just that it's now impossible to use wired headphones while charging the phone.
For a lot of people that doesn't matter but for some of us that's a big deal. If they added a second USB-C port that would fix the issue.
But saying the 3.5 jack is legacy technology is also kinda wrong. A USB headset is not inherently better. You have to compare the digital audio converter that's used. While USB headphones use their own dac, the jack uses the dac of the phone. So a cheap phone with high quality USB headphones will be better but a high quality phone with cheap USB headphones would be worse than using the jack.
Which even means jacks would be more sustainable because you only need one dac per phone rather than one per headphone.
And any form of wireless headphones are just inferior to wired connections.
just carry an entire usb hub with you
I didn't say a USB headset is inherently better. The one on your phone isn't inherently better either if you're using a 3.5mm jack either. So the argument can work both ways. And to be honest, no phone really has amazing onboard DAC, and especially not the Fairphone.
I'd bet it actually is more sustainable to not include it tbh, plus it is likely more affordable.
Mmm now you're dealing with powered devices that have another two batteries that wear out, plus the battery in the charging case, all the electronics involved, etc etc
Vs a simple plastic connector and an associated amplifier IC that costs about $3 in quantity.
You can still use a wired headset if you so wish with your $3 connector. But when someone wants wireless, it's nice to have the option.
I don't blame Fairphone trying to make their product less expensive to produce. It's not like they're the biggest sellers in the world or benefitting from economies of scale as much as other companies.
So what you're saying is the existing crowd with the existing hardware should buy the adapter cable, which if you want to talk sustainability, is more resource intensive to produce than internal phone components, using considerably more copper/PVC/etc by having two connectors in it.
So that the crowd with Bluetooth, which is pretty much provided by every phone wifi chipset by default and is no doubt provided by a chipset like that in the Fairphone, can use Bluetooth.
I don't blame them that much for trying to reduce costs/component count. But I do wonder how many potential customers a manufacturer who is trying to promote freedom of choice/software loses when they remove a particular freedom/choice from their phone.
Removing the headphone socket does grant an extra degree of waterproofing. You don't have to make that area of the phone quite as robust either - a 3.5mm plug has quite a lot of leverage on your PCB when it's plugged in. There's now room on the PCB for .... something else they need/want to put on there, another ram chip, a cubic centimetre for extra battery (which apple tried to justify as their reason), something like that.
But it does mean that they lose at least a few people who like the general simplicity of a wired connection.
Your first paragraph is wrong imo. A minority of users are using 3.5mm jack, including a port on the phone for all users results in more waste than having that minority buy an adapter that can be re used on any phone in the future.
Also please don't argue that jack users aren't a minority now. Most users don't care about having the port on their phone, and most are happy with wireless.
I'll argue what I want, it's my opinion, just like it's your opinion to state that my first paragraph is wrong, and to follow on I would like to counter-assert that most people just deal with what they get when they buy a phone and don't get to have much say in the matter, whether they like it or not. :-)
If you agree that, in general , all users have headphones of some sort, and that both types of users can take said headphones along to their next phone, then:
I will argue that we still end up in the same position. That is, a single port (and internal chips) + cabled headphones needs less resources compared to using an existing multi purpose Bluetooth chip in the phone and now having two extra battery devices with electronics to provide reception and amplification in each bud (effectively duplicating that which was originally contained in the phone). I resist the idea that removing the headphone socket is somehow a "better" choice sustainability-wise, and I will continue to do so.
It would be even more sustainable to not include the Bluetooth module. Less parts means less material use (making it greener) and less cost of materials as well (making it cheaper). The phone has speakers for audio anyway. Who wants to carry around some second accessory like headphones or earbuds? It's not like anyone has a perfectly valid use case for the Bluetooth module, right?
I mean, I don't know their other practices, but the removal of the headphone jack is hardly green washing. I'd bet it actually is more sustainable to not include it tbh, plus it is likely more affordable. Beyond that, with just looking into it, as I expected, they're a more sustainable and repairable set of headphones compared to the rest of the market. Moreover, I highly doubt dropping the jack would drive folks to decide to buy these if they weren't already. They're not tiny earbuds. They're over the ear which is generally something folks buy when they actually are looking for them.
Sometimes accelerated progress can lead to waste, but holding onto legacy tech for too long can also lead to waste.
The big issue with removing the headphones jack is just that it's now impossible to use wired headphones while charging the phone.
For a lot of people that doesn't matter but for some of us that's a big deal. If they added a second USB-C port that would fix the issue.
But saying the 3.5 jack is legacy technology is also kinda wrong. A USB headset is not inherently better. You have to compare the digital audio converter that's used. While USB headphones use their own dac, the jack uses the dac of the phone. So a cheap phone with high quality USB headphones will be better but a high quality phone with cheap USB headphones would be worse than using the jack.
Which even means jacks would be more sustainable because you only need one dac per phone rather than one per headphone.
And any form of wireless headphones are just inferior to wired connections.
just carry an entire usb hub with you
I didn't say a USB headset is inherently better. The one on your phone isn't inherently better either if you're using a 3.5mm jack either. So the argument can work both ways. And to be honest, no phone really has amazing onboard DAC, and especially not the Fairphone.
Mmm now you're dealing with powered devices that have another two batteries that wear out, plus the battery in the charging case, all the electronics involved, etc etc
Vs a simple plastic connector and an associated amplifier IC that costs about $3 in quantity.
You can still use a wired headset if you so wish with your $3 connector. But when someone wants wireless, it's nice to have the option.
I don't blame Fairphone trying to make their product less expensive to produce. It's not like they're the biggest sellers in the world or benefitting from economies of scale as much as other companies.
So what you're saying is the existing crowd with the existing hardware should buy the adapter cable, which if you want to talk sustainability, is more resource intensive to produce than internal phone components, using considerably more copper/PVC/etc by having two connectors in it.
So that the crowd with Bluetooth, which is pretty much provided by every phone wifi chipset by default and is no doubt provided by a chipset like that in the Fairphone, can use Bluetooth.
I don't blame them that much for trying to reduce costs/component count. But I do wonder how many potential customers a manufacturer who is trying to promote freedom of choice/software loses when they remove a particular freedom/choice from their phone.
Removing the headphone socket does grant an extra degree of waterproofing. You don't have to make that area of the phone quite as robust either - a 3.5mm plug has quite a lot of leverage on your PCB when it's plugged in. There's now room on the PCB for .... something else they need/want to put on there, another ram chip, a cubic centimetre for extra battery (which apple tried to justify as their reason), something like that.
But it does mean that they lose at least a few people who like the general simplicity of a wired connection.
Your first paragraph is wrong imo. A minority of users are using 3.5mm jack, including a port on the phone for all users results in more waste than having that minority buy an adapter that can be re used on any phone in the future.
Also please don't argue that jack users aren't a minority now. Most users don't care about having the port on their phone, and most are happy with wireless.
I'll argue what I want, it's my opinion, just like it's your opinion to state that my first paragraph is wrong, and to follow on I would like to counter-assert that most people just deal with what they get when they buy a phone and don't get to have much say in the matter, whether they like it or not. :-)
If you agree that, in general , all users have headphones of some sort, and that both types of users can take said headphones along to their next phone, then:
I will argue that we still end up in the same position. That is, a single port (and internal chips) + cabled headphones needs less resources compared to using an existing multi purpose Bluetooth chip in the phone and now having two extra battery devices with electronics to provide reception and amplification in each bud (effectively duplicating that which was originally contained in the phone). I resist the idea that removing the headphone socket is somehow a "better" choice sustainability-wise, and I will continue to do so.
It would be even more sustainable to not include the Bluetooth module. Less parts means less material use (making it greener) and less cost of materials as well (making it cheaper). The phone has speakers for audio anyway. Who wants to carry around some second accessory like headphones or earbuds? It's not like anyone has a perfectly valid use case for the Bluetooth module, right?