5 ms·

IIRC the trade-off was: - Repairable - Headphone jack - Water-proof Water-resistant Choose two. They're all relevant to being sustainable, but I do thin

by Vinnl 3y ago

IIRC the trade-off was: - Repairable - Headphone jack - ~~Water-proof~~ Water-resistant Choose two. They're all relevant to being sustainable, but I do think that of those three, the headphone jack is least relevant.

ChrisRR 3y ago
Not waterproof, IP55 water resistant. Many 3.5mm jacks can absolutely manage IP55
- Vinnl 3y ago
  Dammit, I was going back-and-forth between the two terms. Updated.
  - ChrisRR 3y ago
    There's a bit of back and forth between whether people consider IPX5 waterproof or not. Personally I think the layman expects waterproof to mean you can drop it in the bath and it won't get damaged. That occupies somewhere between IPX6 and IPX7 which is why it's a bit fuzzy
    - PennRobotics 3y ago
      I'd counter that if you get water inside an IP68, it's screwed. (My Xperia got some moisture under the screen during a long bike tour through the rain, and it never really came back out.) Water seeping inside an IP55 because you drop it in the bath, sink, toilet, hurricane, etc? Turn the thing off right away, remove battery, get it in a box with desiccant, and it'll probably be fine in a day. If not? Still repairable.
      - ChrisRR 3y ago
        There's a few issues with your statement. IPX1-6 are actually grouped separately to 7-8. Complying with 7-8 submersion doesn't mean that it complies with 1-6. So IPX8 states that the device can be submersed, but makes no statement about spray/droplets. If you comply to both, then they're both stated, eg "IPx5/IPx8" The same applies to your IPX5 statement, defined as resistant to spray but not submersible. It makes no guarantee about what could happen if you drop it in water And finally, even the drip tests only test for 10 minutes. Anything longer than 10 minutes is not guaranteed by IPX1-5
        PennRobotics 3y ago
        Right. The Xperia is IP65/68. I just glossed over this because I figure most people are unaware of that nuance. It's a pretty well sealed phone, because once the condensation gets in, it does not get back out without cracking the weather seal. If the FP5 were just a tad smaller with a telephoto (like the Xperia) I'd be all over it---water resistant or not.
    - Vinnl 3y ago
      For me the main concern is it not breaking if it's in my pocket while I'm out in the rain - that was a failure mode for my FP1 and has not been great for my FP2, I think.
abwizz 3y ago
i call bs headphone jack can be made watertight no problem
- abound 3y ago
  Yeah, I bought my phone based on the requirements: - Headphone jack - A functional IPXY water/dust rating - Replaceable battery There aren't a ton of phones that satisfy this, but I ended up with a Samsung XCover Pro and have been quite happy with it. Of course, repairable covers more than a replaceable battery, but I do think Fairphone could have added a headphone jack without too much trouble.
  - zigzaggy 3y ago
    What do you think about this device? I bought an iPhone SE and dropped it onto the rug in my living room and it broke so bad it won't even come on. I'm never buying another all-glass phone again. I checked out the specs on this phone - I'd love to hear what you think about it.
    - abwizz 3y ago
      they need a rubber case, preferably one that overlaps the display slightly.
    - abound 3y ago
      If we're talking about the XCover Pro, I drop it fairly regularly (not intentionally, just clumsy), and I've yet to break the screen. The reinforced edges seem to do the trick, they've gathered a collection of dings and scratches, but the device is overall in surprisingly great shape, coming up on three years of ownership. I expect it to last a few more years at the very least. The first thing to go will probably be the security updates, but as an "enterprise" device, it should hold out a bit longer. It currently gets quarterly security updates, see https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb
onli 3y ago
There just is no conflict between water-proofnesss, repairablity and having a headphone jack. Water-proofness/resistance and a headphone jack does not collide at all. There are many devices that proof that. For repairability, I also do not see how this might conflict with the other goals, as quite some devices had headphone jacks that were easy to swap. Look at how the framework laptop puts them on a small audio board for example, the same had been done in phones.
- Vinnl 3y ago
  So again, this is just my recollection, but glueing parts shut sounds like it should help prevent water getting into the device. So if you can't do that, I assume you get closer to not getting the certification, and then adding another hole in the device might push it over the edge? I do remember they explicitly addressed this in the FP4 launch, so it wasn't for lack of want.
  - onli 3y ago
    Look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_S6JaLvDck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_S6JaLvDck. It's a teardown of the Xperia 1 II. It shows how easy the audio jack can be removed there. The phone is certified as IP65/IP68. The phone itself is glued, but the jack does not seem to be. It likely works with pressure and might have a gasket seal - which is not surprising if you look at how watches do it. But I think you are right - they said something like that when the FP4 came out. But that phone is a matter of principle anyway. If it is possible to get the phone with an audio jack in a good state, but the certification process is broken, then they should not certify it (and publicly attack the certifier). The Sony phone shows it can be done on a technical level, which is what matters.
    - Vinnl 3y ago
      I was indeed not talking about glueing the jack, but about the rest of the phone. Not doing that will presumably lower your rating, and then adding a jack would lower it even more - and I'm guessing that would lower it beneath the water-resistant certification threshold.
solarkraft 3y ago
Sony did/does this just fine with a water proof jack and a seal around it. Complete non-issue.

IIRC the trade-off was: - Repairable - Headphone jack - ~~Water-proof~~ Water-resistant Choose two. They're all relevant to being sustainable, but I do thin

by Vinnl 3y ago

ChrisRR 3y ago

Not waterproof, IP55 water resistant. Many 3.5mm jacks can absolutely manage IP55

Vinnl 3y ago
Dammit, I was going back-and-forth between the two terms. Updated.
- ChrisRR 3y ago
  There's a bit of back and forth between whether people consider IPX5 waterproof or not. Personally I think the layman expects waterproof to mean you can drop it in the bath and it won't get damaged. That occupies somewhere between IPX6 and IPX7 which is why it's a bit fuzzy
  - PennRobotics 3y ago
    I'd counter that if you get water inside an IP68, it's screwed. (My Xperia got some moisture under the screen during a long bike tour through the rain, and it never really came back out.) Water seeping inside an IP55 because you drop it in the bath, sink, toilet, hurricane, etc? Turn the thing off right away, remove battery, get it in a box with desiccant, and it'll probably be fine in a day. If not? Still repairable.
    - ChrisRR 3y ago
      There's a few issues with your statement. IPX1-6 are actually grouped separately to 7-8. Complying with 7-8 submersion doesn't mean that it complies with 1-6. So IPX8 states that the device can be submersed, but makes no statement about spray/droplets. If you comply to both, then they're both stated, eg "IPx5/IPx8" The same applies to your IPX5 statement, defined as resistant to spray but not submersible. It makes no guarantee about what could happen if you drop it in water And finally, even the drip tests only test for 10 minutes. Anything longer than 10 minutes is not guaranteed by IPX1-5
      - PennRobotics 3y ago
        Right. The Xperia is IP65/68. I just glossed over this because I figure most people are unaware of that nuance. It's a pretty well sealed phone, because once the condensation gets in, it does not get back out without cracking the weather seal. If the FP5 were just a tad smaller with a telephoto (like the Xperia) I'd be all over it---water resistant or not.
  - Vinnl 3y ago
    For me the main concern is it not breaking if it's in my pocket while I'm out in the rain - that was a failure mode for my FP1 and has not been great for my FP2, I think.

abwizz 3y ago

i call bs headphone jack can be made watertight no problem

abound 3y ago
Yeah, I bought my phone based on the requirements: - Headphone jack - A functional IPXY water/dust rating - Replaceable battery There aren't a ton of phones that satisfy this, but I ended up with a Samsung XCover Pro and have been quite happy with it. Of course, repairable covers more than a replaceable battery, but I do think Fairphone could have added a headphone jack without too much trouble.
- zigzaggy 3y ago
  What do you think about this device? I bought an iPhone SE and dropped it onto the rug in my living room and it broke so bad it won't even come on. I'm never buying another all-glass phone again. I checked out the specs on this phone - I'd love to hear what you think about it.
  - abwizz 3y ago
    they need a rubber case, preferably one that overlaps the display slightly.
  - abound 3y ago
    If we're talking about the XCover Pro, I drop it fairly regularly (not intentionally, just clumsy), and I've yet to break the screen. The reinforced edges seem to do the trick, they've gathered a collection of dings and scratches, but the device is overall in surprisingly great shape, coming up on three years of ownership. I expect it to last a few more years at the very least. The first thing to go will probably be the security updates, but as an "enterprise" device, it should hold out a bit longer. It currently gets quarterly security updates, see https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb

onli 3y ago

There just is no conflict between water-proofnesss, repairablity and having a headphone jack. Water-proofness/resistance and a headphone jack does not collide at all. There are many devices that proof that. For repairability, I also do not see how this might conflict with the other goals, as quite some devices had headphone jacks that were easy to swap. Look at how the framework laptop puts them on a small audio board for example, the same had been done in phones.

Vinnl 3y ago
So again, this is just my recollection, but glueing parts shut sounds like it should help prevent water getting into the device. So if you can't do that, I assume you get closer to not getting the certification, and then adding another hole in the device might push it over the edge? I do remember they explicitly addressed this in the FP4 launch, so it wasn't for lack of want.
- onli 3y ago
  Look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_S6JaLvDck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_S6JaLvDck. It's a teardown of the Xperia 1 II. It shows how easy the audio jack can be removed there. The phone is certified as IP65/IP68. The phone itself is glued, but the jack does not seem to be. It likely works with pressure and might have a gasket seal - which is not surprising if you look at how watches do it. But I think you are right - they said something like that when the FP4 came out. But that phone is a matter of principle anyway. If it is possible to get the phone with an audio jack in a good state, but the certification process is broken, then they should not certify it (and publicly attack the certifier). The Sony phone shows it can be done on a technical level, which is what matters.
  - Vinnl 3y ago
    I was indeed not talking about glueing the jack, but about the rest of the phone. Not doing that will presumably lower your rating, and then adding a jack would lower it even more - and I'm guessing that would lower it beneath the water-resistant certification threshold.

solarkraft 3y ago

Sony did/does this just fine with a water proof jack and a seal around it. Complete non-issue.