Why is wireless charging not included in FP4

Well if you have gone yet.

It’s called the Fairphone as the team were the ones who not only got Fair Trade gold on the market for the first time but provide a huge increase in production line workers wages no matter which phones they produced in the factory where the Fairphone is assembled etc.

And other phones are also not equally polluting, where did you get that idea ??

But if you are off to other shores have a nice time.

1 Like

Well because I did not.

You found the words alright, but they say something else.

I don’t have to stand to words I did not say or write…

I think Incanus meant this maybe. Whereas you didn’t say ‘should’ saying ‘every single customer’ and tying it to the lack of a 3.5mm jack does imply that is what you meant.

Otherwise why say ‘every … customer’

Sure customers don’t have to buy headphones but your argument stems from the notion that Fairphone are forcing the issue upon customers by not having a jack. Clearly in that sense you are correct each any every customer that wants to use earphones will require a bluetooth or an adapter.

So you can see Incanus’s point and I can other interpretations. I think it was the tone of the argument that ‘forces’ the issue. :slight_smile:

But yes I agree that there is no other real option. Luckily I have an FP3 which will last me 10 years I hope, but I hardly use earphones so no big deal what the future has in store.

But what did you try to say?.

BTW, why do you always wait months or even half a year before digging into this discussion again?

Hi there, I am thinking of getting rhe FP4, but also like wireless charging a lot.
My brother has some LG phone and got this, which seems to work really fine!
Nillkin Wireless Charger Qi Receiver https://amzn.eu/d/aqVTfhW

Another one here. I like the idea/concept of Fairphone, but I actually need wireless charging.

For me the energy provided is free, because it’s in my car. My car’s alternator is using petrol whether I make it charge a phone or not. Whether I charge wired or wireless makes absolutely no difference. And yes I know I should go with an EV, but I can’t for now.

The fact that Fairphone is against it, is not the user’s problem. If they are against it, they should just simply not include a wireless charger and set out a statement like “Hey, wireless charging is inefficient, use a wired charger to be more green” and be done with it. The production of a Qi charging assembly in a back cover can be totally green, and users can then choose to use it or ignore it.

It is a well known fact that there are situations where energy is “left over” or generated anyway whether you use it or not, and in those scenarios it’s totally positively genuinely FINE to go with wireless charging. The added bonus of convenience will be appreciated as well.

Otherwise Fairphone should be against Wi-Fi as well, and include an ethernet jack on the phone :smiley:

Not true even if you consider it insignificant.
If you take power you have to provide a resource and as the eco-freaks will say “it all adds up”

Again not true, no human exploitation is green in the sense it doesn’t use resources that are difficult and damaging to come by

I’m not sure that can be true as well. Energy exists and is not created it’s the transformation of one to the other so it can be exploited. All exploitation has a loss factor.

Don’t misunderstand my arguments.

I reside off grid for 40 years with solar power. The panels can produce, in the summer, ten times what I regularly use and using wireless charging would not impact upon what can be generated to charge the batteries etc. I can not say the same when there is dark cloud cover for days.

Anyway what’s wrong with using a cable in the car?

1 Like

I don’t really see your point. The issue is actually not just the inefficient use of wireless charging, but also the fact it degrades your battery faster. Very off topic, but no car at all is even better. EVs aren’t the fix we need. We need localization of jobs, housing and logistics so we don’t need a car and can manage with public transportation and cycling/walking.

Considering we’re already using up enough resources that we actually need 5 more earths is kind of a big deal. You may not see the impact of our actions directly, because they’re all small. But multiply those actions by 8 billion and we see an unsustainable practice that’s destroying the only home we have.

3 Likes

Nice to see someone taking on the act locally age old idea :slight_smile: Don’t try to change the world, change ‘yourself’

Without and when uranium and coal run out the biomass can only support about 300 million people at the current consumer rate, so may 20 more earths will better supply our current population if we don’t want even more.

These figures are form my own calculation based on biomass yearly growth and the equivalent in energy consumption back in the year 2000

Wind and solar are what the bios mass already use to it’s max extent, maybe a be of CO2 will speed up the production :rofl:

I must add my own take in this everlasting disscution about wireless charging.
I understand the enviormental argument against wireless charging. But, on the other end, there are many people - myself included - who, I belive, consider it to be a deal-braker and refuse to buy Fairphone devices solely because it’s lack of wireless charging feature.

I just recently bought a regular, unenviorment-friendly and unsocial-consciencal smartphone only because wireless charging become a fundamental part of my daily life, like as many other people lifes.

Don’t you think the possibale damage caused by using regular phones by many people who avoiding Fairphone, is prehapse as big as the possibale damage the can caused by wirelessly charging the Fairphones?

1 Like

Hi and welcome to the forum.

This is a user forum so you are not asking Fairphone.

The damage is caused by the consumer in material terms whichever phone is purchased, the small differences are negligible given phone all together are such a small issue.

However the social aspect is very specific to the miners and factory workers that do the dirty work. If people are not happy that they miss out on wireless charging it says that they do not consider the miners conditions much of an issue. Then sure buy any old phone as the environment is a social construct with degrading labour conditions, that no one is really prepared to adjust their own comfort to mitigate.

There are third party qi charger coils that can be stuck to the back of the phone to retrofit wireless charging if you needed it. The issue is that you need to connect the USB-C plug into the port to provide the charge into the phone.

I don’t know what that would do with the NFC function because the coil for that is on the underside of the back of the phone.

But why didn’t you make a compromise instead of expecting that from a company and all of its customers?

To save energy, I plan to charge via USB-C anyway.

However, the USB-C ports sometimes wear out, in that case one still can charge wireless.

Or when visiting a friend’s house, nowadays many have a Qi station standing around, then it’s practical to quickly place it there to recharge for a bit without cable hassle.

2 Likes

You can also think of a magnetic cable. In this way you have less wear and tear on the usb hole.
Make sure you take a magnetic cable that is also capable of data.
I use NetDot Gen10 with a flat end. The cables with a round end are not handy when you lay your phone flat on the table.

1 Like

Ditto! No way can I tolerate a phone without wireless charging in year 2023. I mean, why don’t Fairphone go the full hog and ship a pair of semaphore flags as considerably more energy efficient than something which uses a measly few watts?
I, too, have solar panels, and much of the energy goes to waste as I can’t store it all. Therefore, using Fairphone’s parsimonious logic, they are contributing to the sustainability problem by forcing me not to buy their devices. Or… could it be - as many of us will suspect - that this is simply a cop out not to spend a very necessary dollar or two? Dogmatism isn’t going to change the world, but a bit of pragmatism in bowing to an inevitably universally-adopted consumer convenience can help a lot!

1 Like

The alternative view is why didn’t Fairphone? It’s an inevitable consumer trend, and for every extra buck they save by resisting the trend, they are losing at the very least one sale!

They explained why. It‘s not possible to make a phone that covers the expectations of every single customer.

2 Likes

Just wondering: are you unable to feed it into your national grid? That is what mostly happens here in Germany.

1 Like

I would agree with you if I was looking for a mainstream phone.
But Fairphone is about more than just nice features.
That is avoiding child labour, exploitation, pollution, etc.
For me, these items are absolute deal breakers and will always be.
Not judging, but I think, in this matter, you ended up in the wrong community forum.
And, BTW, talking about must have features: FP4 enables me to run a Google free Android version.
Now, that’s what I call a super cool feature!