@rae … Concerning the “Recycled/bio-based plastic” section of this PDF:
The column headings are inconsistent and thus misleading.
The first column is “Part” and apparently the second column gives the recycling percentage for the respective part, so the third column - which apparently sets this percentage in relation to the overall weight of the phone so you get a meaningful percentage sum in the end - should say “in phone” instead of “in part”.
Is the heading of the second column “Row” because it lists the percentage of the table row, or should it be “Raw” for raw material?
Since the numbers in the third column for the Fairphone 3+ got rounded to two decimal places in every row, they add up to 40.66% instead of 40.67%.
(Does the Eagle Eye Badge still exist ?)
I think they added the exact numbers for the result, which would seem more logical to me. Hence the difference.
And if we’re here to point out mistakes…
In the “rear camera” and “front camera” section, on the “Resolution (MP)” line, there is written for example “48M pixels/12M output” though the unit is already written next to the resolution. Same for the other places where you have a resolution written. Btw., “12M output” doesn’t mean anything on its own.
It seems more logical to me to do the sum with the exact results and then round it up, than adding up rounded numbers. That is, at least, what I learnt in maths. I don’t think it’s a mistake but rather intentional. I may be wrong of course, but I don’t understand why.
When producing the new pdf, maybe it would be a good idea, to just highlight the differences in the FP3+ column, to make it consistent (or for all occasions on both sides). And the difference between red-print and orange-print should be explained, if there is one. To me it does not seem self explanatory. Maybe all differences should be highlighted in orange or red.
For “Max supported video recording resolution” the entries:
1920x1080p @ 120 fps,
1280x720p @ 30 fps
are the same for FP3 and FP3+, so I would not highlight them for the FP3+
Why is the battery capacity printed in red in both columns?
Why is the External speaker loudness printed in red for the FP3?
Why is the percentage of recycled materials prindet in red on both sides?
(Regarding the rounding-difference when summing up, a footnote would be sufficient, that the given percentages are just rounded numbers; and therefore do not totally add up to the percentage overall. This is absolutely common and not unusual, as - obviously, from the gram-data having that accuracy - the percentage is not the exact date, but a rounded one.)
Edit: The differences regarding the finishing on the last page of the PDF should be highlighted as well, as these are the markings, that allow distinguishing the phones’ inside easyly.
I just wonder, how it comes, that the FP3 and FP3+ both weigh 189 gram, when the material weight for the modules of the FP3 is 43.32 gram and for the FP3+ 37.27 gram. This should make the FP3+ 6.05 gram lighter, shouldn’t it?
Interesting thing (imho).
Since the modules have become so much lighter (e.g. the bottom module of the FP3+ weighs only 40.15% of the one of the FP3), the increased percentage of recycled materials for the cover is the important factor.
If someone would exchange the rear cover and the battery cover of the FP3+ for the covers of the FP3 (because of the translucence), the percentage of recycled materials would drop from 40.67% to 6.26%. That would be even less than for the original FP3!
The modules section on page 4 says ‘main cameara’ instead of ‘main camera’; and for some reason, one module (Plastic housing) is capitalised. Consider capitalising all of them as the left column of all other tables (except the device and modules one on page 4) is capitalised everywhere.
When it comes to capitalising and spelling:
In the recycling-percentage section; is “Row material” correct, or should it rather be “Raw”?
On page 4 as well, in the first column, the capitalising is not just inconsistent with the modules.
I totally agree with @AlbertJP on that behalf.
But why are in the section “Recycled/bio-based plastic” the words “Cover” capitalised, while the words “modules” are not. I guess the “cover” should not be capitalised as well.
(And just a tiny nitpick: If possible make the columns for the FP3 and FP3+ the same width. Then the exact same entries for “Supported video codecs” and “Supported audio codecs” would have an identical word wrap and it would not seem, like there is something more to the FP3+. )
I just now realized, that the above mentioned comparison document (v1.3) is no longer available.
I have no idea, why it went offline though.
Available on the support site now is v1.3b, which is 3 pages long only.
Certificates and marking: CB, CE RED,RoHS, REACH,WEEE, PPW, BATT, GCF, BT, WiFi, FCC, HD Voice
This is interesting. The FP3 is now FCC certified - and indeed, it is in the FCC database under ID 2AUWUFAIRPHONE3 since February 24. According to the document the FP3+ would also be covered by that certification.
Colour options: Matt Black
Typo. Should be matte. There is also a spurious dot after the word thickness one paragraph below.
Also interesting: from page 9 it appears that the improved speaker performance is not due to a new speaker module but due to a new amplifier in the core module.