Yeap! I agree but would have bought the FP4 over the FP3 I have.
Does USB 2 allow for data transfer, I think it does 
Digital data for both audio and function controls are transmitted over the data (D+ and D-) USB pins, although there are a few different specifications that define exactly what information to transmit over those pins. Using a USB on the go (OTG) cable to turn external audiophile DACs into host devices has been a bit of a workaround for a while. However, this only transfers audio data. The best way to use the full set of available audio features over a USB port is to build devices, like headphones, that work with the USB Audio Device Class (ADC) specifications. Version 1.0 dates back to 1998 and still works well, but the latest 3.0 revision is far more interesting and important for modern headphones.
USB Audio and USB Type-C headphones explained - SoundGuys
1 Like
Thanks for your finding on Indiegogo, I also backed some interesting projects there in the past. Such a multi magnetic cable isn’t new to me as I’m already using them since a few years.
What’s to find out by me is how a magnetic cable matches with usb-c headphones. It would require to have the charge & data cable with compatible magnet plug to the used usb-c headset type. I couldn’t find anything that looks matching.
Otherwise I would have to unplug for attaching usb-c headphones and then again insert the magnetic plug for the compatible charge cable. This would not decrease any wear on the socket.
Something similar to this universal magnetic adapter with usb-c tip would just be fine.
3 Likes
By the way I believe this initiative is connected to the Impact Hub Amsterdam (https://amsterdam.impacthub.net/) so the crowdfunding is pretty trustworthy.
3 Likes
Hi all,
IIRC the reason they gave for not including the 3.5mm socket was not due to waterproofing but due to 1) longevity concerns and 2) space taken up in the device which prevented something else being included or would have necessitated a bigger device.
-
Is not the real reason, I believe, because as has been said elsewhere the module could easily have been a replaceable one. Maybe they were concerned about it not lasting the 5 year warranty period? I can kind of understand this as a 3.5mm jack is actually quite a significant lever (force multiplier) so over time could fatigue connections, but this is not a new problem, it has been addressed multiple time over the decades.
-
I think this is the real reason but it’s still disappointing to hear. If Fairphone didn’t package up their modules with extra plastic to make them less intimidating for the average person to replace then there would be the extra space needed for this module.
Overall, I’m disappointed too but I rarely use wired headphones anymore because even my lightest ones keep falling out of my ears and my main use case is for listening to podcasts whilst exercising, and BT ones are much more convenient for that, so the loss of the 3.5mm socket won’t affect me too much…
…
…until the BT headset battery dies then I’ll be incredibly irritated! 
Cheers 
4 Likes
Don’t miss the boat
Usually stressed USB ports are assembled wrong by a design flaw. On a Fairphone 4, the USB-C port is user-replaecable.
You can opt for a BT headset which has a user-replaceable battery.
2 Likes
Another obvious statement, but like me I’m sure others don’t want bluetooth with removal battery or not.
I don’t want the battery or the bluetooth. Just a simple jack would be preferable.
But I get it, King Bluetooth is going push Jack the Lad to the sidelines.
4 Likes
Why not? It makes the product much more sustainable. Its very good that some devices in this industry have this option.
Jack the Lad sits happily with their USB-C converted 3.5 mm lightsaber…
Here’s the issue. I don’t consider it sustainable for what I want as it doesn’t coem near to being a satisfactory product.
It does the planet no good at all.
The only ‘good’ thing is the fair trade, and a jack wouldn’t interfere with that.
Any device which has a battery which is easily user replaceable is a plus. Maybe it isn’t good enough for you, but every device I have where I can replace the battery is one I am able to use longer than one where I’m not able to replace the battery.
Fairtrade is another level, another playing field. The Fairphone buds aren’t, btw.
The omission of the headphone port seems to have become a consensus across the industry (for all the wrong reasons IMO), and I agree it’s a shame that FP are going along with it, though I do understand why they have: omitting the audio jack saves cost and won’t matter much to the majority of people, and more crucially, it has no impact on the fairness or sustainability of the device - it may even improve the latter a bit, as it’s one fewer port to break. It’s a dealbreaker for me too so I won’t get the FP4 even if my FP2 exploded right now, but I understand the decision.
10 Likes
The buds use Fairtrade gold.
Fair & recycled materials
Innovating where it counts with Fairtrade gold in the supply chain and recycled plastics.
TWS Earbuds | Fairphone
No mention of factory workers, maybe it’s all auto machine assembled?
How about the IR port, do people also miss that one? 
I used my Nokia 6600 as a TV remote to freak people out. If the Fairphone 4 doesn’t have an IR port, I won’t buy it!!! Common, let’s move on. The 3.5mm jack has been dead for years. By now you must’ve bought a new set of earbuds, because those cables don’t last long. You didn’t buy an USB-C one, and now you blame Fairphone.
3 Likes
I get it is annoying but…
- It increases the device’s IP rating (https://twitter.com/Fairphone/status/1443580649584029704, FP4. IP Rating 54 (dust & liquid protection) – Support)
- They literally released a cheap adapter for those who do want it, showing you weren’t forgotten: USB-C to Mini Audio Jack Adapter (3.5mm) - Accessory | Fairphone
One complaint I have seen a lot on the forum is that the device isn’t dust and waterproof enough, and this helps make it more dust and waterproof and Fairphone has provided a workaround for those who do want that feature.
So, they went out of their way to address a common complaint without completely leaving people who need this feature in the dark.
So… honestly… in my opinion they did well.
8 Likes
The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G is the device which mostly resembles the Fairphone 4, as discussed here. Using the comparison by UPPERCASE with slight adjustion gives the best comparison: Compare Samsung Galaxy A52 5G vs. Fairphone 4 - GSMArena.com
Sound
Loudspeaker Yes, with stereo speakers Yes
3.5mm jack Yes No
Body
[…]
IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 mins) IP54, dust and splash protection
MIL-STD-810G compliant
Bold is A52. They were able to achieve IPX67 dust/water resistant with a 3.5mm jack. How come Fairphone wasn’t? I’d like to know. I wish I knew about this before, I’d loved to have asked this question during the Q&A.
3 Likes
I think the water specs is not to do with the jack, so they could have kept it, but more down to the modularity and user removable parts
2 Likes
Didn’t they say in the one hour pre-release interview that they didn’t include a 3.5 mm jack to obtain the IP54 rating?
But the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G with similar specs has 3.5 mm jack, and the Fairphone 3(+) has IP54 rating.
and they have glued everything possible, so most likely the jack is the only way for water to get inside, whereas the FP is modular and thereofore more ways for water to get inside. With the jack they removed 1 option and probably it was required to receive the ceritifcation, based on the rest of the phone? You can hardly compare Samsung glued phones and the Fairphones I guess…
5 Likes
…but the Fairphone 3(+) had IP54 rating…?
Its that plus this:
And the fact the A52 5G which has a better IP rating (IP67) + a headphone jack which got me puzzled.
2 Likes