[HN Gopher] Non-replaceable battery? Not if this proposed EU law...
___________________________________________________________________
Non-replaceable battery? Not if this proposed EU law passes
Author : rolph
Score : 120 points
Date : 2022-12-25 17:42 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
| [deleted]
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| Why not pass EU phone specs on
|
| How tall and wide should the phone be. Max brightness
| Slipperiness Volume Whether it's round at the corners How thin
| the phone should be Whether those that are sold in EU should have
| all the parts made in member countries just like Airbus
| dainiusse wrote:
| I think this is unnecessary criticism. Battery replacement is
| about sustainability. Especially when corps tend to enable
| throttling.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Phones have been getting better every year, and with it, new
| features and utilities enabled, throttling or not. No one
| (few outside HN) wants an old phone. People want the new
| features that are enabled by new hardware. The effective life
| of a phone is not limited by a battery but the remaining
| hardware.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Phones are good enough that they feature sets last 6 years,
| while the batteries don't. Plenty of people don't want to
| drop $800 on a new iPhone every few years when their old
| one works fine. And those who do move their old iPhone to
| the secondary market. The secondary market exists because
| contrary to your statement, plenty of people are fine with
| old phones.
| ZWoz wrote:
| Lot of iPhone users seem mention longevity as main feature.
| I personally know both Android and iPhone users, who like
| to have phone longer than 2 years. Having user changeable
| battery doesn't take away your freedom to change phone more
| often, but now you have phone with aftermarket value.
| ironick09 wrote:
| Next thing you know after this passes they'll be regulating the
| size and interface to the the battery such that a standard
| sized battery must be supported on all mobile phones or else
| you'll be fined 30% of global profits.
| gtvwill wrote:
| This would be awesome. Proprietary batteries are truly
| terrible design.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Proprietary batteries are useful for getting the best trade
| off of capacity, weight, cost, and form factor for a
| product. Standardized batteries will result in products
| that are worse in 1 or more of those categories.
| gtvwill wrote:
| The benefit standardized batteries have over those trade
| offs just by increasing longevity of items and in turn
| reducing waste I will argue day in day out make it worth
| it. Those metrics are worth zip in the grand scheme of
| things given what we are ruining in order to achieve
| them. Stop breaking the world just so you can have
| trinkets.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Consumers prioritize capacity, weight, and cost over
| longevity. We are simply making the best devices we can
| for consumers. Phones make up a tiny percent of the waste
| humans produce. There are much more high impact areas
| that should be focused on if you want to reduce the waste
| output of humanity. The bias against waste of phones in
| due to their cost instead of the amount of waste it is.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Lol,EU fighting unnecessary waste and here we have people
| butthurt? Lol spud we literally regulate people for building
| shit products that are harmful in every other sector, health,
| food, you name it. Why should tech be any different? And yes
| your e-waste that's completely unnecessary just because your
| company wants to make shit decisions isn't acceptable. It's
| harmful and there's no reason why it should be allowed. Stoked
| the EU are doing this finally. Get wrecked crappy designers
| (looking at you apple).
| brookst wrote:
| You're cool with designers, e.g. Apple, shipping EU models
| that are less waterproof, bulkier, less reliable, and cost
| more? In the name of reducing e-waste?
|
| And does your legal philosophy of "anything not explicitly
| allowed is forbidden" apply to other aspects of life?
|
| All these laws remind me of the apocryphal tale of a
| legislature mandating the pi = 3.
| foreverCarlos wrote:
| Less waterproof? Oh no, how will we all be able to continue
| diving with our iPhones? This is such a common trans-
| European tradition, I fail to see how we will ever adapt to
| this change.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Well folks seem to keep pushing the boundaries and pumping
| out crap that's wasteful, unrepairable and just shit
| designed to appease to some kids fishcher price kids toy
| aesthetic. Then yes. We need these laws. If your so thick
| we have to spell it out one by one a law at a time then so
| be it. I have no problem with this.
| brookst wrote:
| Thanks for showing true colors with the ad hom!
| dale_glass wrote:
| > You're cool with designers, e.g. Apple, shipping EU
| models that are less waterproof, bulkier, less reliable,
| and cost more? In the name of reducing e-waste?
|
| Regulations act as pressure. If this results in less
| waterproof devices and I as an user still want waterproof,
| I'll keep on looking for companies that do the best job
| under this constraint. That will further push the industry
| to figure out the replaceable battery + waterproof combo.
| sdze wrote:
| > https://amzn.eu/d/1CVHPKd
|
| They seem to have no issues earning money offering a cheap
| smartphone (much cheaper than Apple), creating a waterproof
| smartphone with a user replaceable battery.
|
| How can that be?
| foepys wrote:
| That's easy: they don't have >30% profit margins in
| hardware plus service upsells resulting in billions of
| USD in profit each quarter.
| briandw wrote:
| The market decided on this already. There were Samsung phones
| with replaceable batteries and they stopped making them. Samsung
| didn't stop selling them because people wanted replaceable
| batteries more than the phones without.
| PlotCitizen wrote:
| I would prefer to keep to option to at least be able to buy a
| more water resistant phone
| names_are_hard wrote:
| You can buy a Casio watch for about 20 USD that claims to
| resist water to 100 meters. The battery replacement requires a
| small screwdriver, does that count as user-replaceable?
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| false dichotomy
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I'm sure it's technically possible to build a phone where the
| battery is easily replaceable _and_ is highly water resistant.
| Difficult? Sure, but possible. If this regulation really does
| lead phone manufacturers to go back to the days of hand-
| removable backs or slide-out batteries then I 'm sure they'll
| be investigating in R&D to get their IPwhatever ratings back.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Not even difficult. They can and do make buttons, headphone
| and usb jacks, and even mics and speakers. Battery contacts
| are nothing at all.
| danieldk wrote:
| Example: many GPSr units have replaceable AA batteries and
| support IPX7. It's not exactly rocket science -- a good
| locking mechanism and a rubber seal.
| lb1lf wrote:
| The GPSr crowd tend to be less obsessed by their devices
| being a fraction of a millimeter thinner than last year's
| model, though.
|
| (Much as I love a good locking mechanism and a rubber
| seal, I can see it making the phone a little thicker than
| it would be was the battery non-removable.)
| witheld wrote:
| A law requiring everyone to have replaceable batteries
| puts everyone on even ground- phones will continue to be
| exactly as thin as they can be.
| squarefoot wrote:
| My father's underwater flashlights from the 1970s had
| replaceable batteries and were quite water resistant, I mean
| from sea water, not just rain. Of course a phone makes it more
| difficult both for its shape and size, but hey, technology
| progressed a bit in 50 years.
| happyopossum wrote:
| And they were HUGE. With giant o-rings that wear out or need
| to be lubricated regularly, and would fail if they weren't.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Underwater flashlights sooner than not suffer from
| outgassing and tend to have pressure relief valves and
| multiple o-rings to keep the water out. O-rings do need a
| bit of maintenance but it's not a huge burden.
| izacus wrote:
| Why are you trotting out this false idea that replaceable
| batteries somehow exclude water resistance?
|
| Why the dishonest weasel phrasing?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Why the false idea that replaceable batteries don't demand
| serious compromises in other areas of product design?
|
| If EU bureaucrats can design a better phone, well... why
| don't they?
| falcolas wrote:
| Replaceable batteries doesn't prevent the creation of water
| resistant phones - the topic specifically under discussion
| here.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| In fact I'm writing this comment on a waterproof 2014
| Samsung Galaxy S5. It's got a rubber gasket around the
| back cover to keep the water out.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I didn't say they did.
| everdrive wrote:
| A "better" design is one where the consumer can service the
| battery without having to use special tools and a heat gun.
| It is explicitly _not_ one which looks "sleeker" in the
| marketing materials.
| Gigachad wrote:
| You can do it with a hair drier and the suction cap that
| usually comes with the battery. Or you can take it to a
| store at any mall and they do it on the spot for you.
|
| It's one of the easier things to fix. I could swap a
| phone battery easier than I could replace my door handle
| or repair clothing.
| ghaff wrote:
| This is the thing that annoys me about these discussions.
| Be against arbitrary barriers to consumer repairs that
| have no benefits to the consumer? Totally on board.
|
| But that doesn't mean that repairs/replacements need to
| be limited to something a random user can do without
| tools or at least with tools they're likely to have
| laying around their house. I've replaced batteries and
| had batteries replaced in my MacBooks a few times and it
| hasn't been an unreasonably difficult or expensive
| process.
|
| I've had laptops with batteries you could pop out but
| they were relatively heavy compared to today's norms.
| ghaff wrote:
| So basically there's an entire industry needed to support
| people (and mechanics/shops) who work on cars--including
| vehicles that pre-date modern computer controls and which
| are considered user-repairable. But somehow repairing a
| smartphone or a laptop shouldn't require any knowledge or
| equipment beyond what the average user possesses.
| code_runner wrote:
| [flagged]
| dale_glass wrote:
| You can have water resistance and disassembly.
|
| My DSLR is water resistant, despite having multiple ports,
| moving parts, and a removable lens.
| rolph wrote:
| this can, and is done often, no glue needed, just O-rings and
| small aperature sizes, so water stays out due to surface
| tension.
|
| GPSers and FRS radios have done this for a long time. cell
| phones did this until later in the "slim is in " marketing
| campaign.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Is there a recommended maintenance schedule for replacing or
| lubricating these O-rings?
|
| I'm guessing that most owners of waterproof handheld radios
| are more 'handy' than the general population.
| lb1lf wrote:
| Having a number of portable V/UHF radios, GPS receivers and
| assorted other bits of outdoor electronic gear, I have had
| a tiny bit of acid-free vaseline on any gasket or O-ring I
| could find annually. Has worked a charm so far.
|
| (With today's rubber being what it is, I guess I could
| safely at least double that interval - but it only takes a
| few minutes, and the vaseline is effectively free, so...
| rolph wrote:
| depends on materials and environment, most people can
| fingernail them out and push a new one in.
|
| they can vary from self destruct, to immortal service life
| depending on material, and use.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| [flagged]
| geewee wrote:
| That sounds ominously like a suggestion that the US should use
| military force.
| traveler01 wrote:
| These kind of regulations are purely ridiculous. Sure now it
| starts with stuff that "welcome" but the state shouldn't be
| regulating to such a level.
|
| We don't need nany states, there are some examples of phones that
| provide this option and people don't want them.
| Sakos wrote:
| > but the state shouldn't be regulating to such a level
|
| Why not?
|
| > We don't need nanny states
|
| How do you define a nanny state? It feels like you're against
| any regulations at all, but plenty of countries have laws about
| how businesses operate and specifications that their products
| must meet to be allowed to be sold. I'm not sure how a law
| intended to reduce electronic waste is somehow indicative of a
| "nanny state", whatever that is, unless you just believe
| everything should be up to individual choice. Which doesn't
| make sense to me, because I don't know how individual choice
| would be able to solve things like protecting the environment
| from manufacturing waste processes or preventing the extinction
| of wildlife.
| worik wrote:
| No. There are no options if the state is to govern for the
| people, not for corporations
|
| There is more money to be made if the corporate types herd
| together and institute such dark patterns. There is no
| incentive for any of them to break ranks.
|
| Regulation is the only answer. Not perfect, not all that good,
| just better.
| schuyler2d wrote:
| Now do electric vehicles
| greggarious wrote:
| Many people get a phone case partly to add some heft to ultrathin
| phones, it makes sense to mandate this, and possibly an SD slot
| alongside the (good) USB regulation:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58665809
| simonh wrote:
| Are there any other features I don't need and tradeoffs I would
| not like to make you feel like mandating in the products I need
| while you're at it?
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Cry me a river. Not everything is about individuals,
| sometimes collective concerns must be taken into account.
| oplaadpunt wrote:
| Yes, I would want them software rootable by law. It's my
| phone, if I'm prepared to lose warranty, it should be my
| decision to change files internally.
| Certhas wrote:
| You are not the one making the trade offs. The manufacturer
| is. When they realize that certain anti-consumer features
| that are not readily appreciated at the point of purchase are
| possible, they get implemented, even if the benefits you get
| in return are minimal and often more fig leave than anything
| else.
|
| Replaceable batteries and SD Cards are prototypical for
| features that extend a phones useful life, but whose absence
| doesn't get punished because our purchase decisions don't
| factor in things we might wish to have in two years time.
|
| And manufacturers have no incentive to extend useful life.
|
| If long term consumer preferences really would drive phone
| design then why does everyone use cases, but there are no
| options to buy a phone that is less sleak but robust enough
| not to need a case?
| brookst wrote:
| > why does everyone use cases, but there are no options to
| buy a phone that is less sleak but robust enough not to
| need a case?
|
| I don't use a case, and I resent you supporting the use of
| government power to force me to make a tradeoff that I have
| chosen against.
|
| Cases as an option mean the same phone can serve everyone,
| and people can choose to use a case or not. You are
| literally asking why phone manufacturers choose to serve a
| bigger market rather than a smaller one.
|
| As someone else asked, what other purchasing decisions that
| I make should be illegal in the name of forcing every
| product to conform to your personal preferences rather than
| letting consumers like me decide what we want?
| Certhas wrote:
| You are (wilfully?) missing the point that the paragraph
| about cases is making. Many people (most in my bubble)
| use cases. As consumers the device that we want isn't
| being built, and we resort to a subpar substitute. Why is
| something that soany people so obviously want not being
| built? Why is there no "slightly more clunky and no glass
| on the back" 'caseless' option? My thesis is because
| markets don't optimize for what we want, but for what is
| easy to sell us.
|
| As for other decisions you don't get to make: One obvious
| example is the safety requirements for all your
| electronic devices. You can not decide to sell/buy unsafe
| devices.
| brookst wrote:
| > Why is something that soany people so obviously want
| not being built? Why is there no "slightly more clunky
| and no glass on the back" 'caseless' option?
|
| Let's try this another way.
|
| Pretend your a phone company, and pretend that 70% of
| people use cases. And pretend 50% of those are zealots
| about cases and are offended at even the suggestion that
| they might ever go caseless. I think it's less than that,
| but whatever.
|
| So you've got three choices!
|
| 1. Build totally different phones for case and caseless.
| Everything from development to tooling to distribution is
| totally separate.
|
| 2. Focus on one market or the other, but not both
|
| 3. Ship a phone that works great caseless, and cases that
| can be attached for people who want bulkier phones.
|
| Now, even if you personally hate the idea of a caseless
| phone, I hope you can work through why it is more
| economically and environmentally efficient to make cases
| an add-on.
|
| I'm sorry the market isn't serving your needs. I'm less
| sympathetic with anyone who insists their particular
| niche is actually the silent majority that would
| obviously be the correct group for companies to center
| every product decision on.
| Certhas wrote:
| I don't get what you are suggesting here. Companies build
| separate phones for separate market segments all the time
| if it attracts customers. Moreover, there are many
| companies building phones.
|
| Yet there are ~ 0 caseless phones out there. Your
| argument does not explain this _at all_. How you can look
| at this situation and pretend it's not an obvious market
| failure is beyond me. The only question is what the
| origin of the market failure is, and whether regulation
| could help. I don't think for cases regulation is an
| appropriate tool, for USB and replaceable batteries I
| think it is, for SD Cards I am not convinced either way.
|
| But to have a meaningful discussion on this, it's first
| necessary to acknowledge how irrational the phone market
| actually is, which seems to be something that some people
| are (ideologically?) opposed to in this thread.
| falcolas wrote:
| It optimizes for what makes companies more money, once
| all of _their_ costs are factored in. That 's all. We -
| customers - are merely consumers to them, and our only
| role is to buy what they sell; to give them as much money
| as we can bear to give for whatever they're selling.
|
| Externalities are equally ignored, and government fines
| are simply another cost (which is, ironically, why
| significant fines drive changes).
| simonh wrote:
| As already pointed out no, not everyone wants a case. But
| even those that do can and do choose different cases. On
| my work phones I often use battery cases because I use
| them so heavily. Having that option is useful
| flexibility.
|
| Cases are also fashion statements for some people.
| Mandating bigger bulkier phones again forces trade offs
| on customers, making decisions for us you have no
| business making.
|
| As for not knowing what I'll need in future, I've been
| using smartphones for 14 years, I think I've got a pretty
| good idea by now what features I value.
|
| As for SD card slots and replaceable batteries, phones
| with those features were common fur years and years, but
| the fact is the market simply didn't care. If they were
| genuinely valued product differentiators those models
| would have been rewarded and the features would have
| survived. They didn't because the fact is they offer
| marginal utility to most people.
|
| Largely the products I want to use are being made, thank
| you very much. Please leave them alone.
| Certhas wrote:
| Nobody was suggesting mandating bulkier phones. The
| argument was only that in this case what a majority of
| (or at least many) people want is not actually being
| made. That is not surprising, it's just capitalism and
| market failure.
| sidlls wrote:
| Replaceable batteries and "right to repair" features in
| general for consumer electronics are things a relatively
| fringe group of consumers actually want. Most people would
| prefer to simply replace a broken device or take it to a
| tech repair shop and have them do it: they aren't hackers
| or electronics tinkerers and simply don't care to do it.
| gaius_baltar wrote:
| > a relatively fringe group of consumers actually want
|
| Pretty big chance that we are falling victim to a paradox
| here. If the majority of users think "I can't buy a phone
| with a replaceable battery because all high-end phones
| from any manufacturer lacks them" the battery issue never
| get cited on polls on why a person bought a particular
| phone.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Lol >50% of farmers would disagree with you. Your opinion
| re. Who wants to fix stuff is quite limited it would
| seem. I mean hell my parents and every old person I have
| provided tech support to generally if they find out you
| can't change a battery in a device make a comment along
| the lines of "that's dumb" and "that's wasteful". The
| kids I tech about tech are the same. So yeah..
|
| Probably just your peer group bud. Most of my mates would
| prefer to spend 10 seconds unscrewing a compartment than
| paying someone 10 bucks for nothing.
| rolph wrote:
| a very serious point , is what can be done about a
| damaged/swollen battery.
|
| you used to be able to remove it, and deal with it safely.
|
| now , when glued in, if it starts to go thermal, you cant
| remove it, bare minimum your phone goes mission impossible,
| large chance of injury or starting a fire.
|
| all batteries should be removable, for basic product safety.
|
| im pretty sure a federaly mandated recall of all such
| nonremoveable battery items is legally possible here in US, but
| how is the will to do it going to be born.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If a LiPo battery goes off on a device that's screwed
| together, you're not getting that battery out until it's done
| anyway, glue or no glue.
| rolph wrote:
| exactly, that is a safety issue, vs the risk to
| manufacturers of telemetry loss if your phone isnt always
| on.
|
| it shouldnt just be ~possible~ to remove a battery, it
| should be expedient, as in, push a thumbnail into the slot
| and pry lightly, or similar to FRS radio batteries [push on
| a catch, lift battery out]
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| I can have the battery out of my waterproof phone in <10
| seconds, using only my fingernail.
| jacquesm wrote:
| At the risk of stating the obvious: if your phone is
| about to explode get it away from you (or you from it),
| lest you lose more than your phone (or your fingernail).
|
| Lithium Ion going bad is an excellent time to have proper
| respect for chemical burns.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I really hope that the industry will decide on their own to bring
| replaceable batteries back. I have accumulated so many old
| devices over the years and if you stop using them regularly they
| take less than a year to degrade to the point where the device is
| perma bricked and in some cases the batteries become unsafe.
|
| I wanted to give my son my older iPhone I haven't used in 5 years
| and it's not able to hold a charge at all any more. That wasn't
| the case when I stopped using it.
| criddell wrote:
| Why not have Apple replace the battery? Surprisingly, it isn't
| that expensive.
| gernb wrote:
| How do you define expensive? I someone charges $7 for a
| coffee is that expensive or cheap?
|
| To replace a iPhone 14 Max battery Apple charges $99. I'm
| pretty confident 3rd parties could do that for much cheaper.
| Especially if 3rd parties were allowed to make the battery or
| if batteries sizes were standardized.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _I 'm pretty confident 3rd parties could do that for much
| cheaper._
|
| That's not in question -- we know that 3rd parties will
| sell cheap and unsafe replacement batteries. We know that
| consumers who don't understand the risks will buy them. We
| know that lots of people will get ripped off, and that some
| will be hurt.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >How do you define expensive? I someone charges $7 for a
| coffee is that expensive or cheap?
|
| I use my "Guinness Scale": how many Guinnesses can I
| purchase using this money? I have three local pubs and each
| sells a Guinness for EUR6.50, therefore, to me a $7 coffee
| is expensive. My latest keyboard cost me 4.5G - bargain, as
| it's backlit, and I've had it for two weeks now - I also
| factor in use/ per annum/ per day - my bicycle cost has
| cost me 1.06G since I bought it in 2019, but I have added/
| replaced parts and bought clothing which has taken the
| price to around 3G (and 2020 was a washout for sports). I
| also kniow how many Guinnesses I earn a month, and that
| helps with budgeting. The Guinness scale is adaptable: I
| sometimes use 'a pair of jeans', whatever gives _me_ a
| perspective i can relate to.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I did. My issue is more with the fact that many people keep
| old devices around stashed away which over time can turn into
| fire risks.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Are there any good sources of statistics that back up this
| concern?
| everdrive wrote:
| Not that I'm aware of, and I'd like to find some. It's a
| known fact that LiON batteries can spontaneously combust.
| I wish I had an easy metric which helped describe the
| risk of keeping old devices around.
| ghaff wrote:
| When I relegated my n-1 iPhone to driving music on my
| stereo I discovered that n-2 had a badly swollen case.
| Around the same time, I discovered an old MacBook Pro
| also had a badly swollen battery when I went to remove an
| SSD from it I wanted for another purpose. It's not clear
| to me how careful one should be about policing this sort
| of thing in general. Certainly I'm sure I have old LiON
| in things at home.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I have no public numbers but the learning materials for
| fire safety at the work place here has lithium ion
| batteries from old devices called out as the most common
| reason for fires in office buildings. Likewise the waste
| management companies here are routinely reporting fires
| in containers because people throw away old devices there
| against regulation.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I'm not sure about just sitting in a drawer, but 40% of
| garbage fires are caused by lithium ion batteries
|
| Source- https://apps.cce.csus.edu/sites/CalRecycle/usedoi
| l18/speaker...
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's not quite the same thing as sitting still in a
| drawer though. Lithium-Ion batteries really don't like to
| be dropped or crushed. Basically anything that is a
| threat to the mechanical integrity of the cell should be
| really avoided.
| obscurette wrote:
| I don't know about phones, but here where I live (Eastern
| Europe) there is no official Apple stores, but are official
| partners. I own 16 inch 2019 Macbook Pro which has cycle
| count 984 and doesn't hold much charge any more. I asked for
| a quote for replacement from official Apple partner and they
| said it would cost me 861 euros. I consider it very
| expensive.
| [deleted]
| Gigachad wrote:
| The 2019 MacBook had a horrible design that makes battery
| replacements almost impossible. They fixed it in 2021 so
| it's significantly easier to swap now.
| martin_a wrote:
| Great! So, let's invest 2500+ Euro in a new MBP so the
| battery on that one can more easily be replaced in two
| years from now. That's a win! /s
| Gigachad wrote:
| Obviously it's not a solution for someone who has a 2019
| model. Just some context that improvement has been made
| here. Current MacBooks now use pull strips for adhesive.
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| Batteries are a consumable item, they only last a year or two
| before they have degraded significantly, whereas the phone will
| almost certainly work for years. With open source firmwares it
| could last a decade or more and indeed in the past I extended
| mobile phones for a long time that had replaceable batteries. Its
| become increasingly hard to avoid manufacturers planned
| obsolescence at a time where the improvements in phone
| performance has been diminishing.
| ghaff wrote:
| >they only last a year or two
|
| As an iPhone user for more than 10 years, that just isn't true
| in my case. When I upgrade after 3-4 years, battery has never
| been the reason. The battery of the upgraded phone that I'm
| using for some other purpose does tend to give out after
| another few years but that's hardly 1-2 years total.
| sib wrote:
| How do we all move to EU for a bit and vote this down?
| foreverCarlos wrote:
| Just stay in the US and dump twice more e-waste into your local
| environment to compensate for those pesky Europeans.
| sib wrote:
| Cough shutting down nuclear plants to use more coal cough...
|
| Besides, iPhone (for example) batteries are perfectly
| replaceable as they are today.
| blfr wrote:
| None of the phones I had to toss in the last few years were due
| to battery giving out. It was because they become too slow or
| weren't updated by the manufacturer.
|
| Well, one stopped charging and wasn't popular enough for local
| shops to have parts for it. But that was likely wiring/port, not
| the battery itself.
| fsflover wrote:
| > or weren't updated by the manufacturer.
|
| This is exactly why we need GNU/Linux phones, which will have
| lifetime updates (Librem 5 and Pinephone).
| anonymfus wrote:
| That is an example of a privilege that people don't notice they
| have until pointed out.
| dale_glass wrote:
| That's coming to an end.
|
| There's only so much a cell phone needs to do. I think a Note
| 4, which is 8 years old at this point is still a perfectly
| functional phone, with only software related issues. And the
| battery is replaceable.
| falcolas wrote:
| Small nit - using a phone as a phone (voice calls) is fairly
| uncommon usecase anymore (speaking as a 40+ any my cohort,
| not even mentioning the younger generations). SMS et.al. is
| quite common still. But most non-SMS apps will probably not
| work on 4-6 year old phones anymore.
| dale_glass wrote:
| Why wouldn't they work? What stops Signal or Discord from
| working on a Note 4?
| falcolas wrote:
| What pantalaimon said.
|
| Plus, there's an insidious combination of changes to the
| underlying hardware and changes to the APIs. When old
| hardware is no longer supported by the app maker, and
| their APIs have changed enough that you need a new(er)
| version of the app (or they just force you to be on the
| latest version), you're often SOL.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I just replaced my 6 year phone; some apps did not work
| because they required more recent versions of Android, my
| phone came with 7 and I upgraded it to 8. It was a
| painful way to see one app at a time no longer working
| after an app update, some that I could not avoid.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| Usually it's when there are no more OS updates and the
| latest versions of those Apps no longer work with the old
| OS.
|
| This can be somewhat mitigated if you have a popular
| device that is supported by 3rd party ROMs.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| My Note 4 worked for years, then for my SO, then again for me
| a while. In the end we only had to change the battery once
| and sold it to someone else, still serviceable if a bit slow.
|
| Every form factor since has been a pain in comparison.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > . It was because they become too slow
|
| Using POS software that is never optimized does not help,
| indeed.
|
| > or weren't updated by the manufacturer.
|
| That is a real problem, and there is no good solution - apart
| from having eventual Linux phones but we are a very long way
| from there.
| fsflover wrote:
| > apart from having eventual Linux phones but we are a very
| long way from there
|
| This depends on your use case. Sent from my Pinephone.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > It was because they become too slow
|
| This can also be because of degraded batteries. It will also be
| much less of reason over time as phone processors mature.
| temporallobe wrote:
| Just updating the OS can make a device obsolete, though I'm not
| 100% convinced that this is due to planned obsolescence. I have
| an old 16GB iPad that was perfectly adequate when I first got
| it, but subsequent updates of the iOS version gradually reduced
| the available storage to the point where, as of the latest
| version, iOS itself consumes nearly ALL of the device storage,
| leaving very little for apps, much less for storage of actual
| files. Basically my iPad is now useless. This is such a shame
| because I only really use it just as a sheet music reader. This
| could be easily solved by expandable memory, but of course
| Apple is only concerned with selling more devices.
| auxym wrote:
| Same here. Beside phones that simply become outdated (slow,
| small storage, RAM fills up) or accidentally damaged, I had a
| Samsung Galaxy phone which wouldn't read SIM cards anymore, and
| then a Motorola phone which stopped being able to get a GPS
| fix. Both shortly after the 1 year warranty expires.
|
| The result is I only buy cheap phones now (~200$), with the
| expectation that they'll last about a year. I have no idea how
| people can justify spending the price of iPhones and other
| flagships when they are apparently so expendable.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| Sorry to be so frank, but IMHO you probably didn't choose the
| most reliable brands.
|
| I had 3 high-end HTC smartphones and one Huawei, which all
| lasted at least 4 years of use. And the reason for retiring
| them was wanting better hardware, camera, etc., not really
| that they stopped working or became slow (there only was a
| "physical" reason in in the case of the Huawei: the screen
| broke in a fall and it was expensive to replace, otherwise it
| worked just fine).
|
| I don't have experience with Motorola, but from
| friends/family who have or had Samsung, it tends to be
| just... not good. Even if the hardware survives, which it not
| always does, after 1-2 updates they tend to lag like hell. I
| don't really get why they are so successful while e.g. HTC's
| smartphone business basically went under.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| For the last 2 phones I paid about $300, with the expectation
| to last at least 5 years. One did last 6 years, the current
| one is work in progress. At $200, current phones models are
| too low quality to expect to work for 3-4 years.
| kewrkewm53 wrote:
| There's a healthy used market for iPhones because they indeed
| do last long, and Apple provides many more years of software
| support than cheap Android manufacturers do.
|
| IMO when it comes to electronics with little to no moving
| parts it's almost always better to buy used quality than
| cheap new crap. An iPhone that has lasted two years without
| failing will probably last 5 more without anything else than
| battery needing replacement. Mid-range Android phones often
| aren't bad either except for lack of long-term updates.
| tomp wrote:
| Because iPhone's aren't expendable.
|
| My iPhone6 still works. I've moved on for other reasons (more
| space, better camera) but the product still works better than
| most Androids. I even had Apple replace the battery!
| chupchap wrote:
| Phones are slowed down with updates to maintain battery.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I think phones are the least important devices that this
| regulation could involve. Phones already have a vibrant market
| of repair stores which can swap the battery on the spot quickly
| and cheaply. The real issue is the other devices, laptops, the
| nintendo switch, game controllers, etc which have embedded
| batteries that are hard to borderline impossible to replace and
| which are uncommon enough for stores to not stock parts.
|
| Something like the switch for example has no waterproofing and
| isn't ultra compact, it's really just not acceptable that the
| battery isn't a screw in panel like previous consoles.
| everdrive wrote:
| This is very welcome news if it passes. Non-replaceable batteries
| have NO redeeming qualities in my opinion. Some will say that
| they're important for waterproofing, but I previously owned an
| IP68 (ie, certified waterproof) mobile phone which had a user
| replaceable battery. It's clearly not a requirement. Being able
| to replace batteries as they go bad will go a long way towards
| reducing electronic waste, as devices can be used for
| significantly longer.
| klntsky wrote:
| > Non-replaceable batteries have NO redeeming qualities in my
| opinion
|
| Non-replaceable batteries contribute to lowering the price. If
| the producer can expect to sell more copies of the same
| product, the price of a single item can be lower.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Which is useful to the producer, not to the consumer. The
| consumer ends up spending more money by having to buy more
| phones. It's only cheaper if you're looking at a single
| purchase, not over time.
| klntsky wrote:
| > It's only cheaper if you're looking at a single purchase,
| not over time.
|
| It's not entirely true, if you don't buy a new phone and
| simply live with a battery not holding power for more than
| a day, you get both cheaper price of the phone and a
| technically working phone.
|
| Of course someone with higher expectations for battery time
| will have to buy a new phone sooner, but if you can't
| afford it, it's valuable to you personally regardless.
| hattar wrote:
| If the device degrades to the point where it's
| effectively useless for my primary use case, I'm not
| really saving money. Useful timeline needs to be
| accounted for when considering cost effectiveness.
| tosc wrote:
| You don't have to buy a new phone to replace the battery.
| Just take it to any repair shop.
| Jorchime wrote:
| Which probably doesn't reflect the real costs of extracting,
| processing and discarding resources and their effect on
| humans, life and nature very well.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Given that we've largely decided that sustainability is the
| way forward, an argument in favour of e-waste isn't
| particularly convincing.
|
| User-replaceable batteries are just the first step. What we
| should all be pushing towards to reduce waste and emissions
| is a no-compromise right to repair, with easily accessible
| parts, tools and schematics.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| The price of the battery or the price of the final product
| that uses batteries?
|
| Regardless, it matters what your pricing power is.
|
| For a luxury finished product - you price on what your
| consumers will bear (with some maximization curve).
|
| For a commodity battery - then maybe.
|
| Though, I'm not sure I follow your logic why this means more
| batteries will be sold.
| hn92726819 wrote:
| In the very short term, maybe. But it's only cheaper for the
| very first phone. In a few years when the battery dies, the
| cost of the battery would be much lower than the cost of a
| new phone, which the consumers are required to buy
|
| Same faulty logic for injket printers. They're extremely
| cheap so sure, you're "saving money" for a period, but the
| scales tip after one or two refill ink cartridges
| onli wrote:
| If non-repairable products were cheaper and those savings
| passed on to consumers, apple products and the surface series
| would be the cheapest that exist. They are not...
| tosc wrote:
| This is just wrong. Replaceable batteries add cost and
| fragility to the device, make battery life _worse_ , and most
| phones die because they stop getting software updates anyway.
|
| Replaceable batteries will increase e-waste because there will
| be a lot more broken phones.
| kewrkewm53 wrote:
| Thankfully EU is also working on legislation that mandates
| more years of software support. Hopefully days of only 2-3
| years of support will be soon gone for good, it's just plain
| wrong.
| gaganyaan wrote:
| Saying "we shouldn't legislate repairablity because <other
| bad practice that needs to be legislated away>" is not
| terribly convincing. There should 100% be legislation aimed
| at keeping old phones able to run newer software.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-25 23:01 UTC)