[HN Gopher] European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone...
___________________________________________________________________
European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries
Author : gumby
Score : 348 points
Date : 2023-06-16 18:32 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techspot.com)
| Euphorbium wrote:
| Unbelievably based. Now demand sd card slot. Phones could last
| for decades.
| martin8412 wrote:
| The article is blatantly false. The legislation only applies to
| batteries above 2kWh
| Havoc wrote:
| Quick glance at the docs suggests that it is two separate
| points in the legislation?
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti...
| FredPret wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Could you please not post unsubstantive comments and/or
| flamebait? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it
| is for.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the
| intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
| croes wrote:
| They are already replacable
| adaml_623 wrote:
| Cool. The manufacturers will figure out a way to make nice phones
| with a longer lifetime.
|
| Because the EU forces them to.
| Simulacra wrote:
| I wish you were right but I have zero faith that Apple would
| ever willingly follow through with this. A depleted battery is
| an opportunity for them to sell people on a new phone who don't
| realize they can get the battery replaced. It also totally goes
| against their whole ethos of non-repair. Mandating USB C was
| easier because Apple already did that with the Macbooks, so it
| wasn't that big of a leap. Removable batteries, however, they
| would claim would require some expensive, impossible redesign.
|
| Regretfully I don't see this coming to fruition. Apple will
| find a way, by hook, crook, or lawsuit, to get out of it.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Not so long ago some people claimed apple would rather leave
| the EU market than implement USB-C or open up the app store.
|
| They complied (or are in the process of complying) with these
| regulations.
|
| Afaik the proposed battery act allows either swappable
| batteries or a minimum "lifetime".
| seszett wrote:
| > Not so long ago some people claimed apple would rather
| leave the EU market than implement USB-C or open up the app
| store
|
| It's just a case of Americans underestimating the size of
| the EU market. But the large corporations that already do
| business in the EU know very well that they can't leave a
| market that represents half of their revenue.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Alternatively, it'll be another excuse for them to claim to
| revolutionize computing to cheers by bringing back the old
| replaceable battery with some more proprietary stuff and
| carefully hidden statements about the water resistance not
| working afterwards.
| malermeister wrote:
| The same Apple that is prepping to open up to sideloading
| right now?
| Simulacra wrote:
| From your lips to God's ears...
| refurb wrote:
| Or they just create one phone for the EU market and don't
| market the rest?
| noirbot wrote:
| Which could make for a really interesting experiment - how
| many people would buy the EU replaceable battery edition of
| the phone vs. importing/traveling to a non-EU country nearby
| to buy the other version.
|
| It seems clear that there will be some downside to the
| replaceable battery version, whether it's size, cost, weight,
| ergonomics, water resistance, etc. Will the convenience of
| having replaceable batteries and not importing be worth those
| downsides? We'll have to see.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Which could make for a really interesting experiment -
| how many people would buy the EU replaceable battery
| edition of the phone vs. importing/traveling to a non-EU
| country nearby to buy the other version.
|
| Assuming everything else is close enough.
|
| I know there's an ocean between me and the EU, but
| importing a phone becomes significantly more difficult than
| it needs to be based on which cellular frequencies are
| supported.
| noirbot wrote:
| Sure, but I'm thinking about stuff like just going to
| Nordic countries or even the UK. A lot of Europe isn't
| that far away from a country that doesn't follow EU
| rules. I was under the impression that you could, for the
| most part, buy a phone in the US and use it in the EU
| anyway these days?
| tyfon wrote:
| Here in Norway (one of the two nordic countries to be not
| in the EU, the other is Iceland), we adopt more
| regulations from the EU via EOS (EEA) than most EU
| countries.
|
| So we're basically part of the EU without the voting
| rights and toll union benefits..
|
| Besides, our governments and most of the people cross
| "isle" are very much into the green/circle economy thing.
| It would get adopted from the EU even without being part
| of EOS I think.
|
| Personally I think it would be great to be able to have a
| phone longer, I absolutely hate throwing out working
| hardware like the 2010 mac pro I used to have but apple
| decided not to support any more. The funny part is that
| someone has now made a hack/patch so it runs the newest
| os x anyway [1]. It was never the hardware that was the
| issue, just lack of support from apple.
|
| [1] https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-
| Patcher/MODELS.ht...
| seszett wrote:
| That seems unlikely, since it would multiply the design
| costs.
|
| But since I am in the EU I wouldn't mind.
| perlgeek wrote:
| If they do, and it turns out that people generally prefer the
| EU model, other regulators might follow.
| malermeister wrote:
| That just doesn't happen because you lose economy of scale.
| The EU actually has a ton of soft power through this, enough
| for it to be a term in geopolitics:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
| refurb wrote:
| Europe is about 20% of Apple sales internationally. It's
| not that much power.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/382175/quarterly-
| revenue...
| malermeister wrote:
| I don't think many companies would be able to take a 20%
| overnight drop in sales without it causing some major
| issues.
| refurb wrote:
| But the adjustment is not without cost itself.
|
| Is the cost of a complete redesign > lost sales in EU?
| Then don't do the redesign.
| malermeister wrote:
| The redesign is a one-time cost. Lost sales in the EU
| will be ongoing until it happens.
| alex7734 wrote:
| Engineers have become experts in selecting components so that
| they fail right after the warranty period.
|
| Replaceable batteries just means they will make something else
| weaker instead, preferably something that fries the device once
| it fails (see https://youtu.be/7cNg_ifibCQ?t=238).
|
| It's too dangerous not to, as nowadays phones (or computers in
| general) don't really need to be upgraded that often to remain
| useful. No manufacturer wants a repeat of the 1080Ti.
| phyllistine wrote:
| > No manufacturer wants a repeat of the 1080Ti
|
| I think I'm out of the loop. What does this mean?
| alex7734 wrote:
| It's too good, as long as you don't need 4k, it still runs
| the newest games at full quality with more than acceptable
| performance. It has 11GB VRAM. And it's a 6 year old GPU.
| fnimick wrote:
| NVidia made a video card good enough that people who bought
| it had no need to upgrade for 4-5 years afterward. It
| hampered sales of cards for two generations afterward.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Wow, Apple engineering a computer to fail destroying all the
| data after the guarantee and lying to their customers why
| their computers failed is pretty damning.
|
| Did anything come out of this?
| [deleted]
| dbg31415 wrote:
| I hate that the EU can bully American companies into making shit
| we don't want.
|
| I don't want a thick ugly phone. And that's what you get with a
| removable battery.
| nimish wrote:
| The tradeoff for sealed batteries was significantly improved
| ingress protection, larger charge capacity, and lighter weight.
|
| The market spoke and nobody seems to really care that much about
| user replaceable batteries except a vocal minority.
| indrora wrote:
| CAT has sold phones with replaceable batteries and good ingress
| protection.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| They aren't particularly light or sleek though.
| jsbg wrote:
| That and the fact that with phone trade-in programs from
| manufacturers, batteries are much less likely to be disposed of
| inappropriately.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Societies get to choose how they will live, and technology has a
| huge impact on how we live, so the EU is within it's rights to
| make these laws.
|
| If Apple doesn't like it, they can piss off back to California
| and give up 250 million iPhone users to Android.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Feels like, as per usual, people haven't read the source text.[1]
|
| _In order to ensure that portable batteries that were
| incorporated into appliances are subject to separate collection,
| treatment and high quality recycling once those appliances become
| waste, provisions to ensure the removability and replaceability
| of batteries in such appliances are necessary. Consumer safety
| should be ensured, in line with Union law and in particular Union
| safety standards, during the removal of portable batteries from
| or the replacement of portable batteries in an appliance. A
| portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-
| user when it can be removed with the use of commercially
| available tools and without requiring the use of specialised
| tools, unless they are provided free of charge, or proprietary
| tools, thermal energy or solvents to disassemble it. Commercially
| available tools are considered to be tools available on the
| market to all end-users without the need for them to provide
| evidence of any proprietary rights and that can be used with no
| restriction, except health and safety-related restrictions._
|
| Nothing stopping manufacturers from using normal fasteners and
| gaskets to comply while retaining water resistance etc.
|
| [1]
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0237...
| ajaimk wrote:
| Pretty sure the iPhone 14 already satisfies this requirement
| randomfinn wrote:
| > A portable battery should be considered to be removable by
| the end-user when it can be removed with the use of
| commercially available tools and without requiring the use of
| specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge,
| or proprietary tools, thermal energy or solvents to
| disassemble it.
|
| Doesn't it still require heat to undo the glue?
| Retr0id wrote:
| No, they have pull-tabs (although they do often snap,
| requiring heat and/or IPA to loosen the adhesive)
| charrondev wrote:
| Only the 14 though IIRC. The 14 Pro is just like the old ones
| and is one the most complex phones to perform a repair on.
| cududa wrote:
| Correct. The 14 regular has the new design, CAD leaks
| indicate the 15 Pro will get it too.
|
| Two screws and a plunger get you access to both an easily
| replaceable screen and the battery. Really is an
| astonishing design.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/64865/iphone-14-teardown
| [deleted]
| tallowen wrote:
| I wish there were better approaches to solving the problems
| around replacing batteries. This solution has downsides in terms
| of size (extra material required to surround the battery) and
| waterproofness.
|
| I like the features that will have to trade off against
| replaceable batteries. I wish there were more opportunities for
| creative solutions to ewaste rather than the specific outcome
| being regulated.
| iso1631 wrote:
| I can replace my watch battery and it's waterproof
| johnfernow wrote:
| The Samsung Galaxy XCover6 Pro has an IP68 rating (same as
| Galaxy S23 and iPhone 14) and has a replaceable back (and
| Samsung sells official OEM batteries for less than $50.) It
| also has a headphone jack, and is only 1mm thicker than the S23
| Ultra.
|
| https://www.samsung.com/us/business/mobile/phones/galaxy-xco...
|
| Unfortunately, replacement parts are hard to come by for the
| Galaxy XCover6 Pro (Samsung doesn't sell them, iFixit doesn't
| sell them, and I can't even find certain parts from random
| sellers online), so it's arguably less repairable than other
| mainstream phones. An iPhone's battery is significantly more
| difficult to replace than that of the XCover6 Pro's, but if the
| screen, camera, speaker, port, buttons, etc. break on an
| iPhone, it's at least _possible_ to replace them, unlike the
| XCover 6 Pro, so it 's not the device for me and hard for me to
| recommend to others, as even if one doesn't do repairs
| themselves, with a more mainstream phone they can pay someone
| to repair their phone (either at an Apple Store if an iPhone,
| or some mobile repair shop for popular Android phones.)
|
| I don't drop my phone often, but I've still had an optical
| image stabilizer that shook the camera violently, a vibration
| motor that worked _sometimes_ , and a mute switch that worked
| _sometimes,_ so replacement parts are very important.
|
| But even still, the Galaxy XCover6 Pro is proof that you can
| have a waterproof phone with a headphone jack and replaceable
| battery that isn't very thick. If they sold replacement parts
| and committed to as many years of OS updates as Apple, I'd
| strongly consider it for my next phone.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| I blame Apple for everyone's obsession with size. Or really,
| thinness, as everyone seems to have pop tart phones as thin and
| fragile as glass--with such a large phone, what value does
| thinness really add? I'd rather have a less delicate, easily
| serviceable, thicker phone.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Not to mention a thicker phone could have a bigger battery in
| the first place.
| upon_drumhead wrote:
| Have you purchased a fair phone? They exist promising that
| exact product and yet I've never come across a single person
| that actually purchased what they claim to want.
|
| Personally, I love the thin phones. I'd pay extra for it. It
| feels better and is easier carried. And the large screen
| makes it easily readable for my poor eyes.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| I would have bought a fairphone in a second if they had
| camera performance similar to pixel 2/3 or 7. And no, gcam
| port is not a solution sadly( as usual- people want both
| nice software and hardware and fairphone has nice hardware
| but software isn't that good
| COGlory wrote:
| I'd buy one, even with poor performance, if it was
| available in the US.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| Then your blame would be ill placed. If anything, Apple is to
| blame for fragile phones. They're the ones that introduced
| glass rear covers with the 6 I believe. But in terms of
| thinness, the thinnest phone I recall was the Galaxy S3.
| jjcm wrote:
| Have we forgotten about the Motorola RAZR? Thinness obsession
| was a thing long before Apple entered the game.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Whatever the culprit, I would really like my next phone to
| be thicker than its camera1. This is such a bullshit
| design, but every single phone manufacturer adopted it.
|
| 1 - Without paying 4 times more. I don't think I can get it
| even paying 4 times more nowadays, but this was always how
| phone manufacturers lied about the features they wanted to
| push, by offering an alternative that costs 4 to 10 times
| more and using it to show nobody wants it.
| cududa wrote:
| They already sell Android phones like this. They're cheaper
| than iPhones and have more features, like FLIR cameras. Why
| not just buy this instead of forcing your preferences, which,
| clearly the majority of people don't agree with, or they'd
| buy these phones. https://www.catphones.com/en-
| us/cat-s62-pro-smartphone/
| COGlory wrote:
| Because it's about preventing eWaste, not forcing
| preferences.
| cududa wrote:
| And Apple charges $80 for a battery replacement. I think
| legislation would be much better served at driving that
| cost down.
| eppp wrote:
| I would make the weight trade in an instant to get replaceable
| batteries back. I dont see why waterproofness has to be
| sacrificed to get it though.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Modern phones include glued in gaskets to enable water
| proofing. This is incompatible with any kind of easy
| removability.
| eppp wrote:
| Glue in all the gaskets around the electronics and then
| epoxy the battery terminal wires into the waterproof area.
| Let the battery get wet if you can get a new one.
| constantcrying wrote:
| This is what phones did previously. The issues with it
| are an increase in complexity and size (you need to
| physically seperate the components, have terminals, etc.)
| and that you still absolutely do not want water to get
| trapped in the battery compartment and possibly expose
| the battery to water.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Cameras have been weatherproof with replaceable batteries for
| years, it's called gaskets.
| constantcrying wrote:
| >Cameras have been weatherproof
|
| They usually can resist some splashes. Not in any way
| comparable with modern phones.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| I wash my pentax under the tap if it gets dirty, not sure
| how that compares to an iphone?
| constantcrying wrote:
| Iphones can be submerged for significant amounts of time.
| [deleted]
| joemi wrote:
| Cameras are also much larger, so there are more options for
| how to optimally weatherproof them, such as thicker gaskets
| or moving circuitry to better locations.
| danpalmer wrote:
| I love the EU's focus on consumer protections and I'm all for
| progressive policies on environmental issues, but this and the
| USB-C issue strike me as misguided, policies from people who
| aren't qualified to to make the decisions they are making, and
| aren't listening to experts.
|
| I'm glad we're getting USB-C on the iPhone, but it wasn't a huge
| problem and it was probably coming anyway in the next few years.
| But replaceable batteries? I'm skeptical, and think it could
| shrink the market and lower the quality for users.
|
| I feel like a much better approach would be to say that phones
| must work with third party batteries, and manufacturers can't
| restrict battery replacements to their own repair centres. That
| increases competition, helps small businesses, and encourages a
| thriving batter recycling and replacement market, increasing
| device lifetime. As for USB-C, similar legislation about
| increasing compatibility and reducing lock-in (neutralising
| Apple's MFi program for example) could have had similar impact
| without the downsides of the industry being unable to move
| forward.
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| [flagged]
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > the EU was born from authoritarianism and has no democratic
| value
|
| Oh please. Enlighten us how it's undemocratic and
| authoritarian.
|
| I would like to reminder before you start that every country
| joined willingly (and Brexit proved they can leave), its
| parliament is elected by the population of the member states,
| and the council of ministers are representatives of each
| member state democratic elected governments.
|
| But please tell us all how it's undemocratic.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This is misguided, even though Apple is going to implement
| USB-C on the iPhone for the EU market, they're still not going
| to offer it in the US. It's naive to think big companies act in
| any interest besides their own unless forced.
| wizofaus wrote:
| If it drives an uptick in sales in the EU you can count on it
| being eventually implemented for customers in the US and
| elsewhere too. Though it's even possible Apple knows it will
| help sell the devices better - at least initially, but they
| prefer to have users more firmly locked into the Apple
| ecosystem.
| zgluck wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| waihtis wrote:
| > misguided, policies from people who aren't qualified to to
| make the decisions they are making, and aren't listening to
| experts.
|
| Ask yourself what kind of game regulators are really playing?
|
| See how many former banking regulators end up working at large
| banks, same is true for pharma and without even looking
| probably many other industries. The regulatory system is in
| place only partially to safeguard people, it is also in place
| to enforce barriers of entry and it is in place to act as a
| nice career pathway for it's participants.
| smn1234 wrote:
| I'd much rather be able to swap a charged battery for the
| drained one in my phone especially in such circumstances as
| when I'm in a foreign country and dependent on my phone (for
| e.g. safety, to get around) and there's not a iPhone cable or
| charge point around. It seems like a no brainer, certainly from
| a consumer benefit perspective. Using batteries as a mechanism
| for hardware upgrades is ridiculous, instead of the features of
| the new hardware that should be the compelling, selling point
| and the way to a value statement that wins hearts and minds.
| eterevsky wrote:
| If a battery lasts a couple of days, I would much rather my
| phone were waterproof than be able to swap the battery.
| Having a power bank solves the problem of discharged phone
| for me, and anyway I almost never have to use it. Being able
| to drop your phone in the water and pick it up still working
| is far more valuable to me.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Galaxy S5 had both and at 8.1mm/0.31in was thinner than
| phones are now. I don't see why I should have to choose 9
| years later
| Timon3 wrote:
| Waterproof phones with replacable batteries might not be
| waterproof after the replacement - so why don't you just
| keep the original battery, and have a waterproof phone?
| Win-win for everyone.
| eterevsky wrote:
| From my understanding, sealant used to make phones
| waterproof is basically glue, which precludes "easy"
| replacement of batteries.
| Timon3 wrote:
| I don't think you properly understood my comment. I am
| specifically saying: even if replacing the battery makes
| the phone no longer waterproof, you can _just not replace
| the battery_. Nobody comes into your house at night and
| forces you to install a new battery because your old one
| isn 't good anymore.
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's very nice to be able to replace a battery in the
| field. I used to carry a spare charged battery and swap
| it for an instant recharge. That use case is still
| valuable to me, but isn't possible anymore.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Yes, that is why I'm arguing that even if changing the
| battery must necessarily break the waterseal, the battery
| should still be changable. In this hypothetical scenario
| it would be worth it to leave it open to the individual.
| eterevsky wrote:
| I understood your comment. The article implies that the
| battery has to be _easily_ replaceable, i.e. that you
| could just take a battery and maybe a screwdriver out of
| your pocket and replace it.
|
| I don't think it's easy to design a phone that would at
| the same time a) have easily replaceable battery, and b)
| be waterproof until the first battery replacement.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Why not?
| smn1234 wrote:
| I completely agree, that overall water resistance and IP
| rating would be more valuable.
|
| What's stopping figuring out how the hardware can achieve
| both battery replace-ability and water resistance?
|
| Phones already have holes in them, e.g. speakers and
| charger port, and yet are able to survive a water immersion
| event.
| vel0city wrote:
| Its way easier for the speaker ports, you just seal the
| drivers well enough and they'll be sealed unless there's
| just too much pressure. The seal never experiences any
| mechanical wear, you can practically just glue it around
| the edge.
|
| Similar thing with the charger/data port. The outside of
| the port can be completely sealed up with just the
| electrical connections going through. The port isn't ever
| opened, there's no mechanical wear of actually going in
| and out of the sealed area. Glue it all up but leave the
| electrical connectors exposed and its sealed.
|
| A battery door is a whole 'nother issue. Starting off,
| its probably going to have considerably more perimeter
| needing to seal, especially if its like the doors of yore
| where you popped off a significant part of the back.
| Then, you'll need this seal to handle a lot of open/close
| events and be able to handle the dirt and debris which it
| will be exposed to. Keeping the device's profile thin
| gets way more complicated with all of these requirements,
| and the seal will probably still be less reliable than
| the seals for the charging port and the speakers/mics.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > What's stopping figuring out how the hardware can
| achieve both battery replace-ability and water
| resistance?
|
| Nothing, since it wasn't all that long ago that there
| were phones that did this.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Seems like it should be possible for the phone (not the
| battery compartment and battery door, just the rest of the
| phone) to be waterproof, and for the battery to be
| waterproof, and the two can contact each other regardless
| of that contact being in a wet location. After all, we have
| plenty of electrical wiring methods rated for wet
| locations, so why not this? Water isn't the very best
| insulator (especially saltwater and other mineral content,
| which the contacts would need corrosion resistance for as
| well) but it should be sufficient at 4VDC.
| eterevsky wrote:
| Wikipedia says that the resistance of water is 0.2 O*m
| for sea water, 2 to 200 O*m for drinking water. This is
| very low and can drain your battery almost immediately.
| bombela wrote:
| Wikipedia also says that water starts conducting at
| 1.23V, and the common Li-Ion nominal voltage is 3.7V.
|
| 3.7V - 1.23V == 2.47V. 2.47V / 0.2O ~= 30W (12.5A).
|
| You will be able the find your phone on the seabed from
| the bubble emanating from it.
|
| Though the battery protect circuitry (which is inside the
| battery package) will most likely cut power before the
| battery is risks damages.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| > protect circuitry (which is inside the battery package)
| will most likely cut power
|
| I wonder if that's responsible for the experiences folks
| had way before waterproof phones were introduced: they
| would drop their phone into water, it would shut off and
| refuse to boot for a significant amount of time (enough
| to send them shopping for a replacement) and then they'd
| try it a week later only to find that it works fine.
| Accelerated by putting it in a bag with rice or other
| desiccant.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > If a battery lasts a couple of days, I would much rather
| my phone were waterproof than be able to swap the battery.
|
| You can have both.
|
| > Having a power bank solves the problem of discharged
| phone for me
|
| There are cases where a power bank isn't a good solution.
| They big and heavy. Not being able to swap in a fully-
| charged battery on demand means that I can no longer use my
| phone for certain things that I used to be able to do.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > I'd much rather be able to swap a charged battery for the
| drained one in my phone especially in circumstances when I'm
| in a foreign country and dependent on my phone
|
| I don't deny that this is a valid use case for you, but I've
| absolutely never been in this position.
|
| I carry around a battery phone charger in situations where
| I'd depend on my phone. If you squint, yes that's pretty
| similar, but the big difference is that a USB charger can
| power my iPhone and my partners android phone without
| requiring the phones to use standardized batteries
| internally.
|
| I think batteries should be replacing in a repair sense, but
| I'm not sure the "pop open the back and swap it on the
| streets of Tokyo" is a common use case we should _legislate_
| against.
|
| Like others said, I would much rather have it be more durable
| (eg waterproof). Also I'll add that thinness is a desirable
| trait (to a point).
| smn1234 wrote:
| Carrying around bulky power banks or worse, chargers to
| then tie you to sit close to an outlet and wait for the
| battery to charge, is not entirely ideal when you're on the
| go, foreign or domestic. It's also less anxiety-inducing to
| not have to worry about where will I get my next charge and
| how long will it interrupt my plans for.
| lagadu wrote:
| I agree with your point completely but that use case is
| an edge case, would it be worth it regulating all phone
| design in order to address such a specific scenario?
|
| Such use cases are normally handled by creating specialty
| products.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| The portable battery pack is no more bulky than carrying
| around portable phone batteries?
|
| And it has the benefit of being sharable.
|
| And it has the benefit of being able to work hot - you
| don't have to turn off your phone to charge it.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > The portable battery pack is no more bulky than
| carrying around portable phone batteries
|
| They're a _lot_ bulkier. Phone batteries are physically
| very small and light. Good power banks aren 't.
| vel0city wrote:
| I've got a little 2_000mAh 3.7V (7.4Wh) USB battery pack
| here that was vendor swag from a conference, a probably
| 3.7v? 10_000mAh () that I'll then assume is ~37Wh. and a
| Canon NB-13L 3.6V 1250mAh (4.5Wh battery pack) for my
| camera.
|
| For mm^3/Wh, the results are:
|
| Small vendor swag power bank: 96 x 21 x 26
|
| 52_416 / 7.4
|
| 7,083 <-- worst one
|
| Canon battery: 42 x 30 x 9
|
| 11_340 / 4.5
|
| 2,520 <-- wow that's way less
|
| 10,000mAh dual USB power bank: 139 x 22 x 60
|
| 183_480 / 37_000
|
| ~5 <-- wow
|
| By volume / energy, the big power bank wins by a mile.
| And tbh its not _that_ huge, similar footprint to my
| phone and about twice as thick. Plus, it can power two
| devices at once, which can be pretty handy. It has a bit
| over twice as much power as my phone 's battery. This
| logically makes some sense, as phones these days are
| pretty much a battery and a screen with a small logic
| board tagging along for the ride.
|
| If I'm on the go, I'd much rather have a large battery
| bank that provides a good bit of flexibility rather than
| a battery that _only_ works with a single device. This
| one battery pack can charge my phone, my camera, my
| wireless mouse, my keyboard, my headphones, my e-reader,
| and then all the same list of stuff for my spouse. If I
| got a fancier one, it could even provide extra juice to
| my laptop. If I only had a battery specifically made for
| my phone, I 'd only be able to swap out my phone battery
| and all of the rest of my devices would need their own
| batteries or just be left dead.
|
| On top of that, if I wanted to then charge that battery
| outside of the phone I'd have to lug some specific
| charger for that model of battery. Meanwhile if I
| bothered getting a newer USB-C power pack the same power
| cable that charges my laptop and my phone and my
| headphones can also recharge my spare battery along with
| all the rest of the devices I mentioned. I'm much happier
| having a 10,000mAh battery pack in my backpack to
| recharge when needed than needing to think about having a
| few different batteries around and their related chargers
| to keep track of. Once this one dies I'll probably
| vel0city wrote:
| I'm dumb. Should have been 37, not 37,000. So actually
| 4,953 mm3/Wh, meaning the battery pack is definitely the
| winner.
| stickfigure wrote:
| When battery life is a concern, I carry around a small
| flashlight and a (very) short USB cable. The flashlight
| can both receive charge (from the wall) and send charge
| (to the phone) through its USB port.
|
| Lots of high-end flashlights do this. Mine isn't much
| larger than the 21700 cell it contains. If you want to go
| smaller you can get a 1850-based flashlight and still
| almost double the capacity of your phone.
|
| Plus, it's a flashlight.
| JohnFen wrote:
| But it doesn't really address the use case well. It won't
| fully charge the phone and it takes time to do the
| charging.
| cthalupa wrote:
| I feel like those rarer circumstances can be handled pretty
| easily with a portable battery bank, and also pull double
| duty for any other USB devices you might have.
|
| With my 14 Pro Max I charge my phone every 2-3 days, and I'm
| not letting it get down to <20% when doing this, either. I'm
| obviously not making heavy use of it over this time, but even
| on days when I am out and about and using it more, I'm never
| in danger of it running out of battery.
|
| Personally, at least, I'll take the sleeker design vs. an
| easily swap-able battery. Thankfully, it sounds like the EU
| law doesn't actually require it be replaceable in a tool-less
| manner, so it sounds like the type of design the iPhone 14
| (non-max) uses will qualify.
| tomp wrote:
| What's the difference between carrying an extra replaceable
| battery with you, vs carrying an external battery you can use
| to charge the phone?
| JohnFen wrote:
| Weight, bulk, and the time it takes to actually do the
| charge.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| For your use case, powerbanks work very well. Because then
| you dont have to turn the phone of.
|
| My main motivation for only using battery removable phones is
| privacy, because I know they are really off, when I remove
| the battery.
|
| But the choice is currently very limited.
| logifail wrote:
| > this and the USB-C issue strike me as misguided, policies
| from people who aren't qualified to to make the decisions they
| are making, and aren't listening to experts
|
| Experts? <chuckle> In Brussels - just as in Washington - they
| listen to _lobbyists_.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
|
| https://www.lemonde.fr/en/european-union/article/2023/04/24/...
|
| https://www.economist.com/business/2021/05/15/the-power-of-l...
| jklinger410 wrote:
| I think the policies are pretty well informed. I do think USB-C
| was a huge problem, and I don't think it was coming in a few
| years.
|
| I'm not skeptical of replaceable batteries. I think the policy
| that forces them to be removable on top of working with 3rd
| party manufacturers is a good idea.
|
| I don't think replaceable batteries or USB-C requirements
| restrict the industries ability to move forward.
|
| Edit: You can continue to argue in this thread, but the point
| of this reply was simply to point out that the parent comment
| was all thinly veiled opinions with no substance.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" I don't think replaceable batteries or USB-C
| requirements restrict the industries ability to move forward.
| "_
|
| Compelling the use of USB-C will cause stagnation in
| connector innovation; there's no point in trying to to create
| new and more durable/water-proof/wear-resistant/faster
| connectors. The requirements for replaceable batteries may
| cause stagnation in other innovations; if we imagine that
| there'd been similar requirements in the alkaline era, we
| might never have gotten to Lithium-Ion.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > The requirements for replaceable batteries may cause
| stagnation in other innovations
|
| What conceivable stagnation could requiring replaceable
| batteries cause?
| therealchiggs wrote:
| How can we know?
|
| This is part of the challenge with these regulations - by
| definition we're defining a framework based on
| existential knowledge.
|
| What about batteries that can also be panes of glass that
| act as the display? What about ultra low-power devices
| that are powered kinetically by typical human movement or
| magnetic perturbations?
|
| None of these currently exist in a commercially viable
| form, but if we regulate based on our current view of
| technology do we run the risk of making these innovations
| more challenging to bring to market? That's the
| challenging balance that needs to be considered.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The regulation gives manufacturers quite a lot of leeway
| on how easy it is to replace the battery. You could make
| the display a battery, just make sure users can replace
| the display with pull tabs, a set of precision
| screwdrivers and whatever other commercially available
| tools you want. And from just skimming the regulation, I
| don't see how devices would be forced to have a battery.
| It talks about devices with batteries, and batteries in
| mobile phones, but if your device doesn't have a battery
| then this regulation simply doesn't apply.
| dmix wrote:
| History is littered with examples of policy creating
| unintended consequences causing more harm than good. Or
| at least negating the early good it created over time.
| It's usually fine at the start until cracks start to show
| and policies are often a one way street, that only get
| reformed many years after the problems become apparent,
| if at all.
| notRobot wrote:
| There's no reason why devices can't have such a newer,
| better port _alongside_ type-c. Until the new port gains
| traction the presence of type-c will help with
| compatibility, and presumably once this hypothetical
| connector has been proven better than type-c the regulation
| will simply be updated to mandate that instead.
| dmix wrote:
| How can it exist along side USB-C? You mean two ports or
| a converter or something?
| wongarsu wrote:
| Either a port that's compatible with USB-C charging but
| has otherwise different pins or electrical
| characteristics (just like how a USB-A port has 4 pins in
| USB 2 but 8 pins in USB 3, but is still compatible). Or
| you just add a second port.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| Ugly to have 2 ports.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Before we standardized on micro USB, lots of phones had
| ports easily three times the width of USB-C. We were ok
| with that back then, so why would two USB-C sized ports
| next to each other be so bad? In return, all your gizmos
| and chargers continue to work in the transition period.
|
| Or, just make the new port a barrel connector like a
| headphone jack, just with more segments. Bonus points if
| you can plug in an actual headphone and it works. Nobody
| seemed to have a problem with a headphone jack next to
| their USB port.
| wmf wrote:
| Note that USB-C was invented after the EU mandated Micro
| USB. Innovation still happens and the regulations get
| updated.
| brookst wrote:
| How did Apple sell phones in the EU without micro-USB?
| nickff wrote:
| Common EPS was a voluntary standard.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > I don't think replaceable batteries or USB-C requirements
| restrict the industries ability to move forward.
|
| These ultra thin foldable phones probably couldn't exist with
| removable batteries. The thinness required to make it
| comfortable to use would be hard and so would the structural
| integrity with a removable backplate.
|
| It would absolutely restrict durability since it'd make
| waterproof and dustproofing way more challenging, if possible
| at all.
|
| Removable backs would limit wireless charging hardware like
| apples MagSafe (which is great!).
| fnimick wrote:
| > Removable backs would limit wireless charging hardware
| like apples MagSafe (which is great!).
|
| I had a phone with a removable back and wireless charging
| back in 2012. This isn't rocket science.
| crimsontech wrote:
| I had a Palm Pre in 2010 with a removable battery and
| wireless charging.
| johnfernow wrote:
| Same. Was the Samsung Galaxy S3 (which in 2012 had
| wireless charging and a removable back) not sufficiently
| thin? It's less than a millimeter thicker than the
| current Galaxy S23, and I'm not sure that the <1mm of
| difference in the S23 comes from having a non-removable
| back (as opposed to the 11 years of advancements in other
| technologies.)
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| As long as we are sharing random opinions - my Samsung s2
| and s5 were smaller thinner lighter than modern phones,
| with 3.5mm and replaceable battery and microsd card. And
| also had gps and wifi and phone. And were ip67 rated.
|
| Modern phones are going for sexy, that's all. They are
| large in every dimension but Impractically thin even though
| everybody adds another 3mm - 6mm of case anyway because
| they're sleek to the point of unusable. I particularly love
| when we buy a sexy sleek thin phone and then put an
| otterbox on it :-)
| jdmichal wrote:
| I agree with you. But also, to be fair, I'm pretty sure
| in that time phone bodies have transitioned from mostly
| plastic to mostly metal? I'm sure that has something to
| do with the weight, and I would guess that the metal
| shell is probably thicker too?
| chefkoch wrote:
| I had a Nexus one with wireless charging 10 years ago.
| danpalmer wrote:
| Parent commenter, and sure it was opinion, but based in good
| reasoning.
|
| USB-C wasn't the problem, MFi was. The rumours are that
| Apple's USB-C implementation will be locked down in similar
| ways, accessory manufacturers will still need to pay Apple to
| create certified accessories, and data transfer speeds are
| going to be restricted to Lightning speeds. USB-C everything
| is nice, but no non-techies I know like it because it's the
| new cable that's not compatible with any of their stuff (as
| much as I advocate for it).
|
| Removable batteries in smartphones just aren't workable. We
| have too high expectations for battery life, weight,
| durability, water resistance, and size. It negatively impacts
| all of these. There hasn't been a mass market smartphone with
| a replaceable battery in a long time, and if they were that
| great for customers there would have been. A much better
| option would be to focus on repairability, it would have
| almost all the benefits, and effectively none of the
| downsides.
| ruined wrote:
| battery life is _the_ driver of phone waste.
|
| i buy used sub-flagship phones two or three cycles behind.
| they're much cheaper, they do what i need, they're not too slow
| for modern software.
|
| but the battery is the worst part. i get a day's life at best.
| a year in i'm camping by outlets all day if i need to use my
| phone more than incidentally.
|
| all of these phones would be perfectly good on the secondary
| market if a battery replacement service didn't cost as much as
| replacing the phone itself.
|
| i used to swap batteries myself. but it's increasingly
| difficult to do without damaging the screen as you peel it
| apart, and at that point the phone is totaled.
| upon_drumhead wrote:
| I paid $99 to get my iPhone XS Max's battery replaced
| directly by Apple a few weeks back. That phone is almost 5
| years old. I really don't think that $99 is unreasonable.
| ruined wrote:
| apple support is an exception. and that's still half the
| cost of a good used iphone xs. if you'd just bought new old
| stock, you'd be ahead.
|
| i'm currently running a pixel 4, and a battery swap would
| cost more than i spent on the phone.
| nickff wrote:
| Used iPhone XSs are selling for <2/3 the price of new old
| stock (NOS). Why did you shift from one item to the other
| in the middle of your comment?
| ruined wrote:
| at the same price, i'd rather have new old stock than one
| that's been through god-knows-what plus open heart
| surgery.
|
| not sure where you're getting your prices, but it doesn't
| matter. the fact that this is even a point of contention
| indicates that swappable batteries would make a
| difference.
| nickff wrote:
| Where can you get new old stock for the same price as
| used?
| rstat1 wrote:
| Compared to $25 for a battery replacement that you could do
| yourself if it was replaceable kinda makes it seem
| unreasonable.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I really don't think that $99 is unreasonable.
|
| I do.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Luxury products have luxury repair costs
| JohnFen wrote:
| Sure, that's how they can get away with forcing you to
| pay $99 to change the battery, but that doesn't make the
| price reasonable.
| johnfernow wrote:
| iFixit sells iPhone XS Max batteries for $35, nearly a
| third of the cost Apple is charging. $99 may not be a ton
| in some regions of the world, but it is enough that many
| are unwilling to spend that kind of money on a 5 year old
| phone, versus for $35, it's a low enough amount that many
| might just stick with their phone and replace the battery,
| leading to less e-waste.
|
| And while $99 may not be a lot in some regions of the
| world, but it's a significant amount of people's
| discretionary income in other regions (they may not be
| buying iPhones but the situation isn't much better for
| other brands as far as I'm aware.) $99 is also enough to
| outright buy a new cheap Android phone.
| tpmoney wrote:
| >but it is enough that many are unwilling to spend that
| kind of money on a 5 year old phone, versus for $35, it's
| a low enough amount that many might just stick with their
| phone and replace the battery, leading to less e-waste.
|
| Are there people that find spending $99 on a battery
| replacement expensive that are really making the decision
| to replace their whole phone for 5-10x that amount?
| aembleton wrote:
| No, but they might just spend 2x that amount on a new
| Android phone.
| johnfernow wrote:
| Most people aren't spending 5-10x that amount on buying a
| new phone. Global average selling price of all
| smartphones was $317 in 2021. Excluding iPhones (only
| Androids), in 2019, the global average selling price was
| $269.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/788557/global-
| average-se...
|
| And that's the average, likely brought up drastically by
| the sale of extremely expensive phones. Apple and
| Samsung's flagships start at $800 and go over double that
| for their absolute top of the line. Unfortunately I
| couldn't find the global median selling price of
| smartphones, but the source above mentions that 58.5% of
| all smartphones sold during the second quarter of 2019 in
| Latin America had a price tag of USD$199 or less, and 83%
| of all smartphones shipped to Africa during the 4th
| quarter of 2019 had a price tag of $199 or less.
|
| From a quick search, one of the best selling phones right
| now in India is the Galaxy M13, which is Rs. 9,699, or
| about USD$118 -- barely any more than what Apple charges
| for a battery replacement in the US (obviously it's not
| that much for a replacement in India, but it does show
| how unnecessarily expensive $100 for a battery
| replacement really is.)
|
| https://www.bajajfinserv.in/insights/best-selling-phones-
| in-...
|
| In China, those that can afford it seem to buy iPhones
| (10.7% of sales), but all the rest of the best selling
| phones seem to be cheaper phones (next best selling is
| around ~USD$220, and the ones after that seem to be a
| little above or below that.)
|
| https://www.gizchina.com/2023/03/28/top-10-best-selling-
| mobi...
|
| In Mexico, 63% of smartphones sold in 2021 were between
| 3,000 to 10,000 pesos (USD$175 to $585.)
|
| https://expansion.mx/tecnologia/2022/08/04/smartphones-
| mas-v...
|
| However, if I'm not mistaken that all is for _new phones_
| , and most phone sales worldwide aren't new. While used
| and refurbished smartphones make up only 24.4% of phone
| sales in North America as of 2020, they make up 75.6% of
| phone sales in the rest of the world.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1208609/used-
| smartphone-...
|
| So the average person worldwide is not buying a new phone
| at all (and thus spending even less than whatever the
| median selling smartphone price is, let alone the
| average.) However, the percentage of phone sales that are
| used is projected to decrease over time (according to the
| source above.) Not super surprising, given that while
| flagship phones have ditched removable backs for a while
| now, in the past few years more and more budget phones
| don't even have removable backs, and if you have to spend
| a significant portion of the cost of a new phone on a
| battery replacement, then that's a risky decision, as you
| don't know how long the other parts in the phone will
| last, and that's a lot of money that you're gambling on
| it. Sure, 3rd party repair shops in developing countries
| aren't charging you USD$100 for a battery replacement,
| but the labor can still easily double the cost of getting
| a new battery.
|
| At $35 (and that's from iFixit, which if I'm not mistaken
| doesn't even make the batteries -- if the companies sold
| the batteries directly, it'd be even cheaper), a new
| battery would be a much smaller risk, and near certainly
| would lead to less e-waste.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I believe that the average replacement rate of smartphones is
| less than 3 years.
|
| That's one of the reasons manufacturers have given up on (easily)
| replaceable batteries. It's simpler and allows for slicker design
| and anyway, most people will buy a new smartphone before the
| battery reaches its end of life.
|
| The EU is fighting the wrong fight here. It'd be more useful to
| improve recyclability and actual recycling than to force more
| complicated phones where it's not needed.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"I believe that the average replacement rate of smartphones is
| less than 3 years."
|
| It is probably the same as with PC. Initially each generation
| was way more powerful and allowed "better" and more powerful
| applications. But at some point your generic PC has become
| powerful enough to run nearly everything the average person
| wants and there are no more reasons to upgrade. Smartphones may
| have reached the same point.
| arroz wrote:
| USB-C, battery: Taiwan, Ukraine:
| ulfw wrote:
| So how come they aren't making car (EV) batteries replaceable?
|
| Ah yes. Europe still has a car industry whereas there is zero
| phone or computer industry left.
| seszett wrote:
| > So how come they aren't making car (EV) batteries
| replaceable?
|
| I don't think 500 kg batteries can ever be easily and quickly
| user-replaceable, no matter what the EU mandates.
|
| You should complain about the laws of physics (or the weakness
| of humans) rather than make this ridiculous comparison.
| ulfw wrote:
| And yet Nio is doing it already.
|
| How "ridiculous"!
|
| https://www.nio.com/nio-power
| seszett wrote:
| The point of the EU directive is too have easily user-
| replaceable batteries in phones, EV batteries will never be
| easily user-replaceable as long as they are heavier than
| what a human can lift.
|
| Swappable EV batteries are not a new thing and Renault (an
| EU company, thus) has done it for a long time (with mixed
| success though) but it's totally incomparable with this law
| on phone batteries.
| openplatypus wrote:
| There is a manufacturer that has automatic battery
| replacement station.
|
| You drive up. Battery bank is swapped and in 5 minutes you
| drive of fully charged.
|
| It is coming. It won't happen overnight.
| rolph wrote:
| GM was prototyping a two part platform concept.
|
| the chassis was drivetrain, and engine in one unit and
| body/cabin, a separate unit that anchored on.
|
| there was to be few chassis types, and many body types.
| unglaublich wrote:
| The problem is not really the battery anymore, it's the software
| mainly. It's all closed source and is often deprecated before the
| hardware is dead. Then the manufacturer makes it hard to unlock
| bootloaders; keeps drivers closed source and effectively bricks
| the device. For recurring sales are the backbone of modern
| economy so we must force obsolescence.
|
| Why would you want to replace a battery in a useless device?
|
| Please, EU: bring a law that forces manufacturers to release
| their drivers / firmware whenever they stop updating a digital
| device.
| quijoteuniv wrote:
| I have been thinking this a lot! There so many technology that
| could be still use. Ipad 1 , old phones, i have been salvaging
| laptops with linux, and apart from video or heavy specs things
| they work better than new laptops with the microsoft OS.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Please, EU: bring a law that forces manufacturers to release
| their drivers / firmware whenever they stop updating a digital
| device.
|
| I wish I could upvote this more.
|
| It's a crime how I had to throw away in the past perfectly
| usable devices because they were forced into obsolescence.
| deelowe wrote:
| I don't see how this would work given modern supply chains.
| It can be extremely difficult to track down all of the owners
| of a particular IP and when you do, many of them may not even
| exist any longer making it near impossible to get any sort of
| permission to do something like this.
| javajosh wrote:
| The normal neoliberal solution is to wait for a new company
| with a new design to meet the demand for repairable, open
| devices. This is already happening, and I am convinced will
| eventually replace ALL proprietary blobs and silicon. This
| is especially true as the barriers-to-entry keep lowering.
| The only way this won't happen is if government and the
| tightly coupled industrial interests prevent it by fiat.
| This is more likely than you think, since control of these
| devices is far, far more important than most people
| realize. Smartphones are crucial for the tracking and
| control of both large populations and also problematic
| individuals. In theory they could lead to perfect law-
| enforcement, which should terrify everyone. Letting the
| space open up is to give up central authority's invaluable
| tactical and strategic advantage over distributed
| authority.
| brazzledazzle wrote:
| It might be difficult to release it with an open source
| license like GPL or MIT but the company already has rights
| to copy and distribute it.
| pwg wrote:
| IP permissions, i.e., copyrights, are not natural rights,
| they are instead government "grants" of protection. And
| protection granted by government decree can also be taken
| away by government decree.
|
| So no "permission" to release would be necessary if
| government's modified ther copyright laws to withdraw their
| granted protections after some "event" occurred.
|
| The bigger problem is not the permission, it is actually
| finding the code so it could be 'released' once the event
| triggered. To make this work would require some form of
| required escrow in order to gain copyright protection in
| the first place where the code would be held until such
| time as the removal of copyright protection from it
| triggered, and then it could be released.
| skissane wrote:
| > To make this work would require some form of required
| escrow in order to gain copyright protection in the first
| place where the code would be held until such time as the
| removal of copyright protection from it triggered, and
| then it could be released.
|
| Trying to mandate that for _all_ software might be too
| ambitious to politically succeed in practice - but
| mandating source code escrow for software used in certain
| regulated devices - smartphones, cars, planes, medical
| devices, etc - might be more achievable. You wouldn't
| even need to touch copyright law, it would just need to
| be a product regulation. Of course, copyright law would
| have to be touched for a compulsory license, but consider
| that phase 2 and source code escrow as phase 1 - phase 1
| could be enacted now, phase 2 saved for later
| ilyt wrote:
| Then you don't get to sell your e-waste in EU. That's
| enough motivation for them to do.
| gigel82 wrote:
| How about as part of FCC approvals you submit everything
| needed to unlock the device, and it goes into a vault for X
| years than gets automatically released.
| codetrotter wrote:
| > many of them may not even exist any longer making it near
| impossible to get any sort of permission to do something
| like this
|
| So plan ahead. For the 2024 model of each iPhone, get all
| the permissions to release all of the firmware in year
| 2032.
| thrashh wrote:
| The usual concern with regulation is not the big players.
|
| It's the smaller products and businesses that cease to
| exist because it's too expensive to meet regulations. Bad
| regulation raises the cost of entry into the market and
| strengthens the big players like Apple.
| rtsil wrote:
| That argument is often used in bad faith/FUD by the big
| players themselves to halt any regulation attempts.
|
| Regulations can be adapted to affect only the companies
| that reach X percentage in sales or in market share. The
| EU's Digital Markets Act does precisely this, for
| instance.
|
| The regulators can let smaller players grow and thrive,
| and regulate them once they've exceeded a certain
| threshold.
| oblio wrote:
| Thankfully people here are asking for good regulation,
| once which states that at some point in the future every
| phone ever sold in market X needs to have its core
| software open sourced, so companies can plan ahead.
| astrange wrote:
| The EU isn't making good regulation, they don't have any
| tech companies and are just attempting to make it illegal
| to make anything in a fit of pique. The end result may be
| nobody selling phones there anymore.
|
| Europe has an unhealthy culture of naturalistic
| hippiedom, so this is just the same thing that causes
| Germany to shut down nuclear power.
|
| (If you think this one's good, try combining it with
| their six other giant laws you haven't heard of some of
| which conflict with this.)
| waboremo wrote:
| Not sure how much weight this really has in a market such
| as mobile phones in which additional external competitors
| are never going to become a reality.
| wongarsu wrote:
| OnePlus was a nobody when they launched the OnePlus One
| in 2014. They could have easily gone out of business.
|
| And that's one that got big enough to remember them.
| Wikipedia lists 188 mobile phone manufacturers [1]. A lot
| of them very local (e.g. EvertekTunisie making phones for
| Tunisia and Morocco) or defunct; But even my local
| (German) retailer offers 35 brands. Big ones like Apple,
| Samsung and Xiaomi, budget brands like Oppo or ZTE, niche
| brands like CAT or Beafon. It's a crowded market that
| doesn't seem particularly hard to enter.
|
| And judging by the spotty compatibility of LineageOS they
| don't all use the same hardware either.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mobile_phone_ma
| nufact...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Easily fixed by assuming that if an IP owner no longer
| exists or cannot be find, their ownership interest may be
| reasonably presumed to have expired. It's only hard because
| people insist on keeping it that way.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| If we are talking about making new laws, why not just
| modify the law to exclude firmware from any IP protection.
| i.e. compel disclosure of the firmware, and also ensure the
| device manufacturer is protected from any lawsuits arising
| out of such disclosure.
| burntwater wrote:
| If the owners/companies no longer exist, then I would think
| the IP should be free by default. Perhaps that's another
| law to work on...
| arcbyte wrote:
| In 2010 you start a company, wholly owned by you.
|
| In 2011 you obtain a patent wholly owned by the company.
|
| In 2012 you fail to pay the franchise tax and filing
| paperwork for your company so the state dissolves it. You
| don't care because you aren't making money.
|
| In 2013 another company starts making a product that
| infringes on your patent.
|
| You are the defacto owner of the patent. This is because
| you were the owner of the company when it was terminated.
| All of its assets and liabilities devolved to you. No
| action was required of you for this to happen, it just
| happens.
|
| Now imagine this business was actually a joint venture
| between two wholly owned subsidiaries of two different
| holding companies, one of which was public but has gone
| bankrupt and the other was private but subsequently
| merged with a public conglomerate that spun off a child
| company, keeping only 40% of its stock after IPO.
|
| The patent is still owned by people, but good luck
| finding them all.
| fragmede wrote:
| So hire a PI. If someone doesn't want to be found, that's
| one thing, but if they're just out there, living their
| lives normally, that's not insurmountable.
|
| In reality, it's a bunch of work which costs money, and
| if you don't have to spend that money, why would you?
| gbear605 wrote:
| The purpose of a patent, generally speaking, is to
| encourage innovation by giving the creator legally
| protected time in which they can exclusively use that
| innovation. If they don't use the innovation but someone
| else wants to, society is improved by dissolving that
| patent, even if the owner could theoretically be traced
| to some person.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Society is not improved if a beaurocrat can nullify
| people's inventions. Who decides what "using" is? Why do
| we need to pay taxes to employ those people? We have
| patent law, which is already a lovely gravy train for the
| state.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| > Society is not improved if a beaurocrat can nullify
| people's inventions. Who decides what "using" is?
|
| This is reversing the natural order of things. That
| bureaucrat isn't nullifying fucking ANYTHING. That
| bureaucrat is artificially limiting who is allowed to
| create/use a thing.
|
| The natural state of the information is: "Use this - it's
| free". The whole of humanity might exist because mirror
| neurons literally go: "Hey - I can do that too!".
|
| It's only when you add a monstrously complex and entirely
| artificial patent system on top of things that it gets
| complex.
|
| So we're ALREADY deciding who is allowed to use things,
| and it's already artificial and bureaucratic.
|
| All this does is fucking stop making it worse. And
| patent/copywrite is already so god damn egregious as a
| system. I'm firmly in the camp of "nuke it from orbit".
| It's time to try something other than this hideous
| abusive system.
| FemmeAndroid wrote:
| The patent renewal system is the attempt to solve this.
| In the case that the patent isn't wanted, or the patent
| owner goes out of business, the patent owner won't pay
| the annual renewal (in most countries; the US is once
| every 4 years) and after the (usually) 6 month grace
| period, the patent is public.
|
| The invention as disclosed and documented in the patent
| is free to the world.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Tough luck. If it's that important, register your
| ownership interest somewhere and keep that property claim
| alive by renewing it once every few years for a nominal
| fee. Property rights are not so important that the world
| should stop turning if a property owner has retired to a
| cave without leaving any forwarding address.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| In the UK, if a company that owns intellectual property
| is dissolved, it becomes bona vacantia, and is officially
| property of the King.
|
| There's an entire government department dedicated to
| selling this property.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Wait, are you telling me that the UK actually has a
| halfway-decent solution to the orphan works problem!?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| The process is a little arcane, but it's documented here
| https://www.gov.uk/guidance/buy-intellectual-property-
| bvc8
| beefield wrote:
| > If the owners/companies no longer exist, then I would
| think the IP should be free by default. Perhaps that's
| another law to work on...
|
| I think I have even more elegant solution. All IP should
| be subject to a tax (or maintenance fee or whatever you
| want to call it). As soon as the IP owner fails to pay
| the tax, IP falls to public domain irrevocably. The
| actual structure of the tax can be subject to debate. I
| would propose a highly progressive tax over time, for
| example for patents something like $100 for the first
| year, then doubling every year.
|
| Seriously, why should IP _not_ be taxed? We tax almost
| everything else that is possible to tax. Especially given
| it is far from certain that IP is net benefit for
| society. (I 'm willing to give the benefit of doubt
| though, that's why I am not proposing to abolish IP
| completely)
| diegoholiveira wrote:
| The money made with the IP is taxable.
|
| I can support your proposal only if the IP taxes are
| deductible from incoming tax.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| That's the beauty of regulation.
|
| Do you want to sell your devices in this large, debeloped,
| profitable market? The you have to comply.
|
| Manufacturing supply chains are already awfully complicated
| beast. Complying with reflgulaion of providing firmware for
| your hardware should hardly be a huge problem.
| pinusc wrote:
| It would require doing things slightly differently, such as
| hardware vendors having to buy the rights to redistribute
| firmware blobs / source code... just because it's hard it
| doesn't matter it can't happen. After all, if physical
| components can be brought together to make a product, why
| can't software licenses move with them?
|
| One could also imagine radically different IP laws
| concerning firmware or even software.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Software is replicable. It might open up companies' IP to
| worldwide competition. That's the difference from
| hardware.
| Draiken wrote:
| It's hard to see it happening with how things work today.
| If companies had to do this they would make an effort to
| figure it out.
| deelowe wrote:
| How? How exactly would they figure it out? As someone who
| works in hardware development full time, often supporting
| older hardware, I don't see how this is feasible. Most of
| the IP we work on requires 3 or more parties to be part
| of the NDA.
| colordrops wrote:
| This could grandfather existing phones. Future phones would
| need to trace providence of IP and get requisite
| permissions.
| slim wrote:
| How about a rule that says you have no intellectual
| property whatsoever on my phone if you don't maintain it
| for a year. I would be free to decompile it recompile it
| and make it opendource
| lrem wrote:
| Nah, the government can change the law. The obstacle to
| overcome would be the software quality. Today your driver
| is a hairball stuck with chewing gum to a point release of
| everything. In the case of a smallest change of anything it
| goes up in flames. That's something harder to overcome by
| decree. Needs incentives in place.
| dminuoso wrote:
| The modern supply chains behave this way precisely because
| no such requirements exist.
|
| It's a typical facade argument you might hear from
| politicians when they parrot lobbiysts.
| qalmakka wrote:
| I think Apple would never tolerate that. I can see them
| lobbying political parties in order to sabotage EU cohesion if
| that gets proposed.
| lagadu wrote:
| Like they never would tolerate being forced into USB-C or
| being forced into allowing other app stores?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's a very worthwhile point but one about a different issue.
| Consider also the possibility that if my device has been
| bricked but the battery is still doing OK, I might wish to use
| it in a different device.
| chongli wrote:
| No, it's batteries too. And water/dust/fluid ingress
| protection. Modern phones are sealed up pretty tight because
| users want them to be waterproof. This makes it very difficult
| to build in replaceable batteries!
| timeon wrote:
| > users want them to be waterproof
|
| They also want displays not to crack. That is why lot of them
| are buying protective cases.
|
| Are not sealed up phones overrate in this context?
| pjmlp wrote:
| As I keep mentioning, Nokia has been building hardened phones
| for construction workers, with replacement batteries, for
| ages, all the way back to their feature phones.
| snuxoll wrote:
| My GoPro's are waterproof yet they have removable batteries.
| It's not impossible, but it does mean they have to be every
| so slightly thicker.
| timeon wrote:
| > so slightly thicker.
|
| Maybe if they decrease size of display, it wouldn't be that
| bulky. And we would finally get a phone again that is not
| wannabe tablet.
| dtx1 wrote:
| solved see galaxy s5
| ktosobcy wrote:
| I don't. I just want it splash resistant - it's more than
| enough. just because there is a promile of morons that can't
| handle the phone doesn't mean that a lots of users should be
| prohibited from easily changing the battery... because of
| that lots of devices end up on landslide because users can't
| get enough charge I fit anymore...
|
| I loved lumia devices - easily openable back to replace
| battery, nice materials (rubbery polycarbonate?) that offered
| nice grip. Having PC displays instead of glass would be
| awesome - no need for extra protective case because the
| shatter woild be a tning od the past. At the worst, a scratch
| resistant screen protector, which we all already put in the
| devices either way to help avoid screen cracks..
| astrange wrote:
| If the battery was easier to replace, the phones would
| still end up unusable either because the storage would wear
| out, the cell modem would become obsolete, the display
| would get burnin, or someone would drop it and crack the
| screen.
| oblio wrote:
| This is just ridiculous.
|
| See Jerry Rig Everything. He even says that there are
| solutions for this even for glued-up phones, manufacturers
| just don't want to implement them because they're for sure
| against battery replacements.
|
| It's not like glue is some sort of magic substance.
| blowski wrote:
| Of all the incredible technology in a modern smartphone, it's
| too hard to make replaceable batteries?
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| But really waterproofing the phone doesn't require gluing
| everything together to within an inch of its life, just a
| gasket and a few screws. Yes it will add $5 or something to
| the cost of a phone, totally worth it, and will improve
| repairability in general to boot.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| You make this claim but have you ever worked in product
| design for something trying to achieve an IP water and dust
| ingress rating?
|
| It is far more than "just a gasket and a few screws". The
| rating can't just be good on unboxing day. You want it to
| hold even after a few years, several drops on the floor, in
| cold weather, etc.
| munk-a wrote:
| Watch makers solved this problem decades ago - there are
| very reasonable mechanical solutions to waterproofing.
| And if some limited components need to be sealed (i.e.
| the USB port requires special shielding) that sealing can
| easily exist in a device that is otherwise reasonable to
| maintain.
|
| Watch maintenance has been done by skilled professionals
| using generic tools and (generally) generic components.
| Waterproofing is an excuse used to limit our ability to
| repair and maintain our devices and maybe because
| somebody didn't like the appearance of a screw face or
| screw cover on one side of the device.
| petsfed wrote:
| Do most watches have ports that are designed for
| thousands of uses? My smart watch sure does. But of all
| the possible avenues by which its waterproofness might
| fail, that connector is #1. I'm pretty sure its custom,
| as the cable has actual pogo pins to connect.
|
| Strictly from a product design and especially hardware
| design standpoint, I get the resistance to easy
| replacement of certain parts. Designing for a replaceable
| battery means designing your seal to withstand at least
| twice as many battery replacements as the law requires,
| or you make sure you have enough replacement seals
| stockpiled to cover the number that will be replaced, or
| you use a a commodity seal (think an O-ring).
|
| Apple eventually made ~86 million iPhone 8 and 8 plus.
| Let's say that's representative of any given model of
| phone. How many millions (billions?) of seals is that?
| How much does that cost to store? To distribute? How much
| does that affect the cost of the phone?
|
| I am fully behind right-to-repair. I won't work for
| companies that have lobbied against it (and as an
| embedded hardware and firmware guy, that's significant).
| But there is a measurable, monetary cost to designing
| things to be repaired. Either we accept that only the
| richest n% of e.g. phone manufacturers can afford to stay
| in business, we as the consumer accept lower performance
| at the same price point, or both.
|
| All of that said, my point regarding connectors with
| finite cycle lifespans is relevant. These physical
| devices themselves have a lifespan. What is the point of
| replacing a battery when the charging port, headphone
| jack, physical buttons, touch screen, etc are spec'd to
| fail well before the average battery does? What about if
| you have the same iPhone 8 soldering problem, where the
| phone can't actually survive being put in the back pocket
| of a decently tight pair of pants? How does government
| regulation regarding batteries reverse the trend of
| people buying cheap things because they cost less?
| brookst wrote:
| How does the case size of a watch compare to the movement
| size?
|
| Are you prepared to have a similar ratio for your phone?
| Basically the phones we have now with a permanent, very
| durable waterproof case?
| [deleted]
| moffkalast wrote:
| the easiest way is to just separately encapsulate all
| parts that need to be removable (i.e. the battery +
| wireless charging coil in one piece and the rest of the
| phone in the other), and only have the connectors as the
| exposed pieces. A gasket around those and contacts far
| enough away from each other for good measure and you're
| good to go.
|
| Plus the Samsung Active line never needed to go to these
| extremes to churn out perfectly fine waterproof phones at
| slightly higher than average prices. And they weren't the
| only ones with these sort of offerings.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > This makes it very difficult to build in replaceable
| batteries!
|
| Except it doesn't. The last two waterproof phones I had had
| user-replaceable batteries, a USB port, and even a headphone
| jack.
|
| What it does is add a few dollars onto the BOM.
| phan wrote:
| You must be joking if you think its just a BOM adjustment
| and a small cost... way to oversimplify the actual
| implementation
| freeone3000 wrote:
| There was a beautiful period where phones had a headphone
| jack and a USB-C connector and a replaceable battery and
| IP67 water resistance.
| cout wrote:
| Which phone was that?
| bmicraft wrote:
| Galaxy S5 did it just fine
| JohnFen wrote:
| All I'm saying is that you used to be able to get
| smartphones that were like this, and they weren't any
| more expensive than any other smartphones. (EDIT: I was
| wrong, they were about $25 more expensive.)
|
| So this is demonstrably possible. The only reason I can
| think of that it's not done anymore is cost savings.
| Sander_Marechal wrote:
| And shaving 0.3mm of the thickness!
| COGlory wrote:
| Kyocera has been doing it for years.
| veave wrote:
| https://fdn2.mobgsm.com/vv/pics/kyocera/kyocera-
| duraforce-pr...
|
| I don't want my phone to look like that by law.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Only actual people who must have an IP68 battery
| replaceable phones are that kind of people. Others just
| go for an iPhone and just pays for shop replacements few
| years later.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| It looks awesome.
| astrange wrote:
| Looks like what a 15 year old at a 90s LAN party would
| have their desktop themed to.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Galaxy S5 did it
| numpad0 wrote:
| Yeah, more like $200 on price and added trait of
| overheating.
| saxonww wrote:
| I wonder about this.
|
| First, it seems like you could just make the phone part
| waterproof and if they dunk it, they have to replace the
| battery. I have ruined a phone by putting it through the
| wash, and I would have been very happy to just replace the
| battery instead of chucking the phone.
|
| Beyond that, I wonder what the reality is for waterproofing
| needs. Are people taking smartphones diving? IP65 means it's
| resistant to 'spray' - like rain, not a firehose - and it
| seems like a battery compartment with a tight-fitting cover
| would be more than enough for this. IP68 doesn't apparently
| mandate a depth rating but recent iPhones are tested to 6
| meters for 30 minutes. That's more water pressure than 99% of
| those iPhones are ever going to see.
|
| I don't personally think the non-replaceable battery has
| anything to do with IP rating, it's because manufacturers
| want soft-sided batteries with more delicate terminal
| connections, for volume/capacity reasons.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Most waterproof norms are only valid for freshwater. Most
| usb/lightning ports rust after being subjected to salted
| water and you end up not being able to charge your device
| anymore.
| brookst wrote:
| Really? I've taken many an iPhone snorkling in the ocean,
| just in zipped pocket, and they have all been fine.
| aembleton wrote:
| That's really impressive. I destroyed a Sony phone a few
| years ago just going for a short swim in the sea.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Why don't they sell updates? Even if they open source
| everything, I'd pay for them to support my phone for longer and
| I imagine the margins on a SW update outweigh the cost of
| producing more hardware.
| riedel wrote:
| Actually the EU RF, product liability and cyber security
| regulations rather point into a direction that disallows use of
| aftermarket firmware that can delay onsolecense and encourages
| lockdown. Instead of overregulation we need create an economic
| system that encourages sustainable use of resources. The EU
| just does what they can do best: regulate
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| It seems that they are too good at it, to the point of
| outlawing new competitors and even hobbyists who simply can't
| afford to deal with the paperwork; eg see the shit-show that
| security regulation around OSS.
|
| https://hackaday.com/2023/04/21/the-cyber-resilience-act-
| thr...
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > we need create an economic system that encourages
| sustainable use of resources
|
| Which would require regulation, or you have way too much
| faith in humanity. Regulation isn't bad, just dumb
| regulations.
| riedel wrote:
| Totally agreed but good regulation needs a vision and
| common values beyond a common single market (alas we just
| do more regulations centrally in the fear to get regulatory
| fragmentation decentrally)
| munk-a wrote:
| Proper cost attribution of externalities could provide an
| alternative to regulation... unfortunately the only way we
| currently have to measure these externalities is regulation.
| Directly regulating the bad outcome instead of the
| externalities that contribute to it is less likely to lead to
| misaligned economic incentives.
|
| Regulation is not a bad thing - though within the US a fair
| amount of regulations were constructed to increase the
| barrier to enter a market at the behest of lobbying.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| The battery is still a huge problem, this is just clouding the
| issue with something else. Batteries wear out and have a
| fraction of their lifetime in a few years and can be replaced
| for under $20
| cptaj wrote:
| Its a good precedent to have. There are solutions to the
| software issue you mention. They're not perfect but for some
| hardware, they do work.
|
| If the software problem ever gets solved, you WILL want to be
| able to replace the batteries won't you? You can and should
| fight both battles since they serve the same purpose.
|
| The precedent is also good for devices other than phones.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Why would you want to replace a battery in a useless device?
|
| I agree with what you say, but even phones I had that became
| unsupported and I couldn't replace the OS in didn't become
| useless. They still worked.
|
| A user-replaceable battery would be useful for them as well.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Back in the feature phone days there were zero updates.
|
| If one was lucky, maybe with developer tools there was a
| firmware update, and even those happened at most once.
| forty wrote:
| If this is a priority for you, you could vote with your wallet
| and purchase a fairphone next time your current phone dies.
| They provide fairly long software support and always had
| replaceable batteries.
| watwut wrote:
| Battery in my last device became too weak long before device
| was useless. Device was perfectly fine, just that battery did
| not hold long anymore.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| I had a couple phones I really liked where the battery got
| puffy - ie, very very bad - while the device was otherwise
| great. Tried replacing with an ifixit kit, but the screen got
| borked in the process. Total waste...
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Yeah battery will virtually always be the first to go. Unless
| you crack the screen.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| in my experience, it's the charge port that goes. My last
| two devices, each of which I had for 3 years, the charge
| port failed before the battery did. I just finished fixing
| my current one. Although I did decide to do a battery
| replacement anyways while I had the device open. But that
| was just because of how hard it is to open them at all. My
| battery health monitoring app said it was at ~80% health
| still. And while the charge port hasn't always failed on me
| in the past, I'm not sure the battery has ever been the
| reason for me personally, although I'm probably just lucky
| in that regard.
|
| Basically, I'm not sure that any one "thing" is the thing
| that always fails. There are multiple common points of
| failure and generally speaking, phones are hard to service
| in any manner these days. I personally would gladly give up
| water and dust protection, as well as thinness in exchange
| for ease of serviceability. Unfortunately, that seems to be
| a relatively uncommon set of preferences (although
| obviously it's probably much more common in places like
| Hacker News).
| jandrese wrote:
| This is why I only buy phones that support inductive
| charging. It's really not an expensive feature and it
| saves so much wear and tear on the charging port.
| thatwasunusual wrote:
| > in my experience, it's the charge port that goes.
|
| I have had this problem on a regular basis with all of
| the iPhones I have owned, and the problem has never been
| that the charge port is dead, but that dust and/or lint
| has gathered in it.
|
| The solution is very simple: use a tootbrush or similar,
| preferably something plastic that won't break, BUT NOT
| ANYTHING METALLIC, to dig out the dirty stuff. Problem
| solved.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| Sometimes it's been lint, and I've been able to clean it
| out, but eventually cleaning it out stops working.
| dragonmost wrote:
| I'm still running a pixel 2 which is almost 6 years old now.
| I had to have the battery replaced 5 years in. Although it's
| not the most practical you don't have to replace the full
| device. Manufacturers would prefer you do.
| hedora wrote:
| Drivers / firmware aren't quite the right solution. They're
| tied to obsolete android, so they'd still be useless.
|
| They should have to provide documentation for every IP block in
| the device, source code for any drivers, and the ability to
| unlock the bootloader.
|
| This would make it easier for people to back-port modern
| android / iOS, or just run linux on old devices.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's one chunk of the whole smartphone problem.
|
| Software can come after (or during).
|
| Let's amplify postmarketos a bit ..
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Yes but replaceable batteries are a good start and a more
| pressing issue. A phone with a 4+ year old battery is useless
| even if you have all the software for it.
| arroz wrote:
| Not my experience... I replaced my iPhone 6 because it was
| slow, not because battery was bad
|
| And since 2018 I have iPhone XR, and the battery is fine
| still. So is the phone speed. I'm not changing it anytime
| soon
| dainiusse wrote:
| Do you remember the whole phone throttling issue on a bad
| battery?
| photonbeam wrote:
| The software slows the phone down so not create current
| spikes that the aged battery cant handle
| willcipriano wrote:
| The battery probably made it slow:
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/apple-settles-
| wi...
| vel0city wrote:
| > I replaced my iPhone 6 because it was slow, not because
| battery was bad
|
| iPhone slowness can go hand in hand with batteries going
| bad, especially in the iPhone 6 days. Apple phones will
| limit peak performance when it detects the battery voltage
| can't handle it without too much of a voltage drop. From
| what I understand its now an opt-out setting, but for most
| of the iPhone 6's life it wasn't an option.
| astrange wrote:
| If you opt out of it your phone will suddenly turn off,
| which is definitely not an improvement over being slow.
| Having the opt-out is nonsense and an example of bad
| regulation.
|
| This isn't the only reason an old phone would be slow
| though, batteries are not the only consumable component
| in a phone.
| vel0city wrote:
| For sure. I've had devices slow down from storage wearing
| out as well.
| pryelluw wrote:
| Are both note true?
|
| We should have both. Replace battery, components, and software
| access.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| > The problem is not really the battery anymore.
|
| Huh, why not? I'd love yours too, but battery is also good.
| What do you do with a superb open source phone where you need
| to replace device because battery is dead and you cannot
| replace it? Let's please aim for both and everything!
| ephbit wrote:
| > Please, EU: bring a law that forces manufacturers to release
| their drivers / firmware whenever they stop updating a digital
| device.
|
| I don't see much hope of such a thing being decided soon, if
| ever. The incentives for politicians are mostly not aligned in
| this direction.
|
| The much more realistic path towards having devices/software
| that can be used for more than 3-5 years is IMO if more people
| started supporting projects like postmarketOS, fairphone,
| shiftphones, Librem, (mntreform for laptops) and other such
| croud-funded and more open/free designs.
|
| Once such devices/OSes work good enough to be usable in day to
| day life without serious hassle/disappointments, more people
| will actually use them and a community can grow, allowing the
| products to mature.
|
| I think a very good example (in software) is the f-droid app
| store that has reached a sufficient level of maturity that many
| people now use it exclusively (instead of the Google play
| store).
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| > The much more realistic path towards having
| devices/software that can be used for more than 3-5 years is
| IMO ...
|
| i used any and all of my smartphones that long. no problem.
| jupp0r wrote:
| This is stupid. Battery lifetimes has come a long way (1000-2000
| cycles are the norm) and will improve in the future. Devices are
| much denser and are waterproof. There are trade offs and
| customers have chosen to favor designs that do not require easily
| replaceable batteries. I wouldn't want to pay the price for
| having one.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| On the one hand, maybe a reduction in e-waste. Then again - do
| you trust your average person to recycle batteries responsibly?
| At least the phones have some residual trade-in value so people
| are incentivized to turn them in _somewhere_.
|
| However, the other challenge is people like buying sketchy cheap
| batteries off the internet, as we have seen from the recent spree
| of e-bike fires in NYC apartments so...
| gevz wrote:
| I wonder what is the definition of easily removable and
| replaceable. Does popping a few screws and using a specialized
| tool qualifies as easy? What about re-sealing the device after to
| keep the waterproof rating?
| ars wrote:
| There's nothing to reseal, it's just a simple rubber gasket.
| Waterproofing is not some rocket science complicated thing that
| requires magic.
|
| Usually when they write these laws they say something like
| "replaceable using commonly available and inexpensive tools".
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| My Xperia Z something had a gasket over the charging port and
| like all gaskets, it failed. Lost a beautiful phone over a
| "simple gasket".
| oblio wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36362032
| imran-iq wrote:
| The samsung galaxy s5[0] had a easily replaceable battery while
| keeping its waterproof rating
|
| ---
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S5
| cududa wrote:
| "By the end of 2014, it was reported that sales of the S5
| were 40% down on the previous S4 model, prompting management
| changes at Samsung".
|
| This was the last user replaceable battery mainline Galaxy
| phone. This was also the same generation of the iPhone 6,
| which was dramatically thinner than the S5 and it's
| replaceable battery. The market spoke.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Make new regulation to require non-proprietary screws
| oblio wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36362032
| edhelas wrote:
| I think you know the answer.
| notRobot wrote:
| > In order to ensure that portable batteries that were
| incorporated into appliances are subject to separate
| collection, treatment and high quality recycling once those
| appliances become waste, provisions to ensure the removability
| and replaceability of batteries in such appliances are
| necessary. Consumer safety should be ensured, in line with
| Union law and in particular Union safety standards, during the
| removal of portable batteries from or the replacement of
| portable batteries in an appliance. A portable battery should
| be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be
| removed with the use of commercially available tools and
| without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are
| provided free of charge, or proprietary tools, thermal energy
| or solvents to disassemble it. Commercially available tools are
| considered to be tools available on the market to all end-users
| without the need for them to provide evidence of any
| proprietary rights and that can be used with no restriction,
| except health and safety-related restrictions.
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0237...
| epolanski wrote:
| Is waterproof even a real needed feature?
|
| Like, I've been owning mobile phones for 22 years at this point
| and it's literally something I've never cared or benefitted
| from.
|
| On the other hand, having replaceable batteries is definitely
| something that's been useful in the past.
| chrisbrandow wrote:
| Is it useful to protect an $800 device from being ruined by
| accidentally dunking it in a pool, lake, toilet?
|
| Yes.
| x3874 wrote:
| [flagged]
| reillyse wrote:
| What is this word vomit.
| cududa wrote:
| Or taking pictures of my nephews in the pool. Your
| blatant misogyny around a phone battery is pathetic.
| epolanski wrote:
| I never buy over $300 phones, and anyway it never happened
| to me in 22+ years to ever drop a phone in a
| pool/lake/toilet.
|
| I'm not discussing it being useful, I merely said that it
| doesn't feel _really_ needed by me.
|
| If I had to choose between interchangeable batteries and
| waterproof I would choose the first one hands down.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| You said:
|
| > Is waterproof even a real needed feature?
|
| That comes across as though you're trying to dismiss it
| as unimportant; it doesn't come across as though you're
| actually asking the question and willing to listen to the
| answer. And then, responding to people who answer you
| with further dismissals of their reasons continues to
| seem like you're trying to dismiss it as unimportant
| because you don't use it.
|
| In response to someone saying they don't want to lose an
| $800 phone to water damage, what value does it add to say
| "I never buy over $300 phones, and anyway it never
| happened to me"? Other people _do_ buy expensive phones,
| and also, whether expensive or cheap, other people _do_
| want to not lose them to water damage, and for that
| matter, other people _do_ want to use them in
| environments where they 're likely to get wet (e.g.
| pools/showers/baths).
|
| It comes across as though you're trying to say "but
| you're wrong to want that", which results in the response
| you are getting.
| martin8412 wrote:
| Yes, it is a needed feature in humid environments.
| gsich wrote:
| That is not the same.
| chongli wrote:
| Also anywhere that drops below freezing in the winter.
| Coming indoors with an ice cold phone is going to cause
| tons of condensation. If the phone isn't sealed (or placed
| inside a sealed case) then water will get inside.
| epolanski wrote:
| Wait, are you saying that till few years ago non-waterproof
| phones broke more or something? Because that never
| happened.
| cududa wrote:
| Phones cameras frequently were rendered useless before
| this, when humidity would seep in and condensation would
| form in the lense.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Huh, really?
|
| I use my cell phone in the rain, I use my cell phone in the
| shower. I drop it in the mud and rinse it off in the sink.
|
| Waterproof is a top-tier feature, right up there with "not
| exploding the screen into a thousand shards when I drop it".
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Some people live a life of random wetness, mud, and
| dropping things. Other people honestly do not. There should
| be products for both groups.
| epolanski wrote:
| Well, when I shower I shower, I'm not distracted by a
| phone, and few drops of water under the rain have never
| done anything to any of my phones.
|
| Might be a top-tier feature for you, but it never made any
| difference to me.
| numpad0 wrote:
| It probably has measurable impacts at manufacturers'
| scale in repairs. Even if you didn't consciously shower
| with a phone, it could rain which to a phone is same as
| owner taking it to a shower.
| vel0city wrote:
| I'm around pools and spas a good bit and like having my
| phone near me to do stuff like control music and be able
| to respond to events without needing to get out of the
| water. Pools have killed quite a few of my devices in the
| past. Just the other day I tripped while working around
| the pool and fell in (quite dangerous, for sure) and I
| had my phone in my pocket. If it wasn't waterproof, I'd
| be out a few hundred bucks from that accident.
|
| I also like to go hiking and camping a good bit. I've
| lost a few electronic devices from getting caught in a
| storm. Its nice having the peace of mind that it doesn't
| matter if I get completely soaked with my phone in my
| pocket.
|
| Finally, I have kids, and they're of the stage where its
| fun to throw things in toilets and in sinks.
| cududa wrote:
| I use my phone in the pool all the time during the summer,
| ever since they became water proof. Or take pictures in the
| lake, etc.
|
| As well, once a day I run my phone under the faucet while I
| wash my hands and give it a clean. I absolutely want my phone
| waterproof and happily will trade a user replaceable battery
| for a waterproof phone.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"Is waterproof even a real needed feature?"
|
| Depends on one's lifestyle that can include hiking / cycling
| under heavy rain for example.
| halflings wrote:
| Yes it is. I had a phone accidentally fall in water 3-4
| times, was pretty happy waterproof phones are a thing.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| > literally something I've never cared or benefitted from
|
| I'm happy for you, for never having lost a phone due to an
| accidental encounter with water. I haven't lost one recently,
| but:
|
| - I fumbled an old flip phone while having a night out on the
| town and dropped it into the toilet.
|
| - I replaced it with a really cute small Kyocera candy bar
| phone, that my girlfriend at the time didn't notice was still
| in my pants pocket when she washed my pants (I'm not sure if
| waterproofing would have saved this...)
|
| - I recently dropped an iPhone 12 into a bathtub full of
| water and suffered 0 ill effects from it.
|
| If I had to choose between replaceable batteries and
| waterproofing, I'm not sure which I'd personally choose. I've
| changed internal batteries in a few phones over the years...
| it was a bit of a hassle, but kept a $1000 device alive for
| another year or two. The water-killed phones... there was no
| bringing them back to life.
| tstrimple wrote:
| I'm not sure about the iPhone, but my AirPod Pros went
| through a wash / dry cycle on more than one occasion with
| no apparent loss in functionality.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| I think it's pretty necessary. I remember I went to a theme
| park and wanted to have a good time and got drenched. My new
| phone was ruined. Just the other day, a friend that tried to
| throw me into a pool got pulled in with me. He had his phone
| on him. Though the last one is a bad example, sometimes you
| want to do something spur of the moment and not worry about
| ruining your phone.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Next up, headphone jacks please!
| lozenge wrote:
| I followed through to the link and I don't think it actually
| creates a hard requirement for replaceable phone batteries.
|
| There's also a clear exception for rinseable devices, I guess
| they mean shavers and toothbrushes, but potentially phones could
| come under it as well.
| layer8 wrote:
| The exception is for "appliance specifically designed to
| operate primarily in an environment that is regularly subject
| to splashing water, water streams or water immersion, and that
| are intended to be washable or rinseable".
|
| I don't think that phones can count as being specifically
| designed to operate _primarily_ in such environments, unless
| it's specifically an underwater phone or similar.
| RadixDLT wrote:
| just in time, my google pixel 6a phone is bloated and cracked
| open the back cover
| jrm4 wrote:
| Just broadly, let me just echo my full throated _support_ for
| regulation in this space. Forget the vast majority of the goofy
| "innovation" arguments I hear, the fact that 3 family cell
| phones, 2 laptops, Steam Deck, Nintendo Switch, and Oculus can
| all use the same charger makes insanely more sense that what we
| were doing before.
| crimsontech wrote:
| In some ways (convenience). I think it will also lead to not
| supplying the device with a charging / data transfer cable to
| reduce e-waste.
|
| Lighting connector is actually better than USB-C for a phone
| charger, there is no little contact to snap off inside a
| lighting port and it's easy to clean pocket lint out of the
| lighting port with a tooth pick.
|
| This isn't the case with USB-C, it's more fragile and harder to
| remove debris with damaging it which is why I think apple use
| it for iPad but not iPhone.
|
| The battery thing is good though, I have seen way too many
| people using devices with swollen batteries because they are
| way beyond their useful lifetime.
|
| I don't know this for sure but I would hope the software on the
| phone can prevent this on modern devices.
| gok wrote:
| So you're really happy that there is regulation requiring what
| the market already did on its own?
| rat9988 wrote:
| Yes, because some actors don't want to follow suit.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| lol. do you remember times before microusb? which was also
| somewhat forced by the EU? so no.. the unification on the USB
| wasn't all pure force of market...
| lagadu wrote:
| Single charger is lovely: nowadays whenever I travel I carry a
| single charger; it charges: my laptop, my work laptop, my
| phone, my noise cancelling headphones, my wireless iems, my
| book, my watch.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Different dates, but the relevant one 2027..
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230609IP...
| Ekaros wrote:
| Next step should be mandatory software updates. For something
| like 7 years from initial sale. Which would allow 2 years of
| normal sale cycle and then at end 5 year of support.
| activiation wrote:
| Thanks to EU for micro USB, USB-C and hopefully replaceable
| batteries
| ianburrell wrote:
| I think the big question is how "easily" replaceable are the
| batteries. I doubt were going back to external, swappable
| batteries since those add extra bulk. And that isn't needed since
| batteries are much better and power banks and chargers are
| everywhere.
|
| What is needed is a way to easily replace the battery when it
| gets old. Now, need to take it to repair shop or take chances
| with DIY. It sounds like proposal includes internal batteries,
| easily removing back cover, and replacing the battery with
| connector.
|
| I'm about to replace the swollen battery on 5 year old phone. It
| wasn't worth paying someone to do it. I'm worried cause I broke a
| previous phone doing the same repair.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > I'm worried cause I broke a previous phone doing the same
| repair.
|
| Just let them ban glue in phones and they're done.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Let's just ban everything. Let's all go back to the trees and
| live in caves.
| cududa wrote:
| iPhone 14 (non pro) has done this. Leaks indicate it's coming
| to the 15 Pro, too. Two screws and a plunger can pop off the
| screen and back battery assembly.
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/64865/iphone-14-teardown
| sva_ wrote:
| Pretty sure I read somewhere that small devices like phones and
| tablets are exempted. Thanks for nothing.
| gregschlom wrote:
| First paragraph in the article: "Among the many changes, the
| new rules would require batteries in consumer devices like
| smartphones to be easily removable and replaceable."
| permo-w wrote:
| do you have a source for this?
| layer8 wrote:
| They are not exempted, the text of the regulation is very
| clear. You must be confusing it with something else.
| powerapple wrote:
| I remember when we had replaceable batteries, many, with
| different shape, different spec, different charger. Then someone
| did invent a universal charger with movable pin. If you want to
| replace battery on your iPhone, you can actually do it in local
| repair shops. Powerbank is actually a good product. I don't miss
| replaceable batteries.
| duringmath wrote:
| Stop micromanaging everything what the hell
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Good at making laws. Not good at making tech.
| a_square_peg wrote:
| Also a rule to make laptops be completely off when powered off...
| not just in some 'sleep' state that turns on and overheats while
| in a bag. I can't imagine how much laptop battery life is wasted
| away due to this.
| dang wrote:
| Is this rule enacted now or was this just a vote?
|
| That's the important detail for whether this counts as SNI or not
| (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...)
| .
| codetrotter wrote:
| Server Name Indication
| officialchicken wrote:
| No, the rule can not be enacted since it has not been fully
| adopted - the final (multilingual) text has to be added to the
| European Council Rules via the plenary voting procedure. This
| rule will come into effect following that vote.
| dang wrote:
| Thanks - I appreciate the help. Do you know if the final vote
| is just a formality or if there is a real chance it won't
| pass?
|
| Most proposed bills / votes don't end up resulting in much so
| we tend to downweight those threads on HN and wait for the
| thing to actually happen (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=a
| ll&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
| anigbrowl wrote:
| The downside of this is that discussions are more likely to
| end up as purely reactive toward change that has already
| occurred, and disgruntlement among the losers over what
| feels like a _fait accompli_ can poison discourse.
| Discussion of legislative issues prior to passage leaves
| open the possibility of organizing /lobbying for or against
| a given proposal, should an informed consensus emerge among
| those discussing the issue.
| dang wrote:
| That's true. It's not a great trade-off. The problem is
| the tons of low-quality "bill proposal" articles that
| attract attention even though they tend never to amount
| to anything.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Very true, given the frequency of performative
| legislation that it meant to satiate the political
| appetites of constituents rather than effect real change.
| On the whole HN seems to do a good job of distinguishing
| serious from frivolous proposals, though.
| officialchicken wrote:
| It's the least I can do to help dang!
|
| Mostly a formality IMO. Here's where it can get fairly
| political even though it's nearly a final (published) rule
| ... this vote was fairly heavily in-favor, only 20 against
| IIRC and even fewer abstentions. Some last-minute horse
| trading can definitely occur and bind it up. My personal
| opinion is that I think that's almost certain to pass at
| this point (given the nature of manufacturing in the EU
| versus say borders or food products) and I definitely would
| be sourcing screw and battery connector suppliers now if I
| designed phones.
|
| Progress (in English) can be tracked here: https://www.euro
| parl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0237...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Notwithstanding occasional repetition, I think you should let
| voting and depth of discussion determine whether a report is
| significant or not. Even when factual or procedural changes are
| small, a well-written report might provide worthwhile new
| analysis or perspective on legislative prospects.
|
| To be sure, some time and attention is wasted on repetitive
| discussions that restate the same issues with breaking any new
| conversational ground. But complex problems often require
| multiple attempts at a solution.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I expect each EU hardware design mandate to be worse than the
| previous, now that they've got a taste of the power...
| malermeister wrote:
| How are any of them bad so far?
| jntvjnvutnuvt wrote:
| Having cookies message popup on every website you visit is a
| good thing?
| malermeister wrote:
| How is that hardware?
| ragebol wrote:
| The choice given by gdpr is, roughly, either: no tracking
| OR do track but ask for consent.
|
| Those websites doing the cookie walls should have taken the
| hint to simply not do tracking. Instead, they chose to be
| annoying.
| Havoc wrote:
| Thank you EU.
|
| On apple devices specifically I've found battery life to be the
| showstopper. ifruits all the way back to 7 if not longer are
| still very usable....but that would be a 7 year old battery. Most
| lithiums start to fade after 2 years.
| layer8 wrote:
| You can easily have an iPhone battery replaced. The regulation
| just guarantees that you'll be able to do it yourself rather
| than having to use a professional service.
| ralph84 wrote:
| What about replaceable flash memory? That's a consumable too.
| guywithahat wrote:
| The EU is slowly going to make google's [project
| ara](https://www.leaflabs.com/project-ara) mandatory despite 20
| years of consumers demanding thinner, more water resistant
| phones
| constantcrying wrote:
| I still do not agree with that rule. Replacable batteries are at
| odds with water tightness. I would have bought more phones if
| mine didn't survive water to a great extent.
|
| I think instead the regulation should focus on making parts
| available and phones reasonably easy to repair. This will most
| likely include switching out seals, which are needed for the
| protection from water.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| I think batteries can technically be submerged in water and
| discharged safely but it's an engineering challenge. As long as
| the rest of the phone is waterproof I think we are okay.
| constantcrying wrote:
| It is significantly more complicated than that. Water isn't
| just dangerous because it short circuits, but because it also
| attacks the materials.
|
| You do not want water in your phone, seperating the battery
| compartment also increases thickness and complexity.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Exactly my point. It's possible but complicated.
| FpUser wrote:
| Super thin phones are impossible to hold without the hefty
| case.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| But most phones arent super thin. Imagine adding a
| replaceable battery and thickness to those.
| FpUser wrote:
| I remember having Samsung Note 4. It had user replaceable
| battery and I had it cased. No problemo.
| nulld3v wrote:
| > Replacable batteries are at odds with water tightness.
|
| Are you sure? I've seen many phones that are both IP* rated and
| have a replacable battery.
| constantcrying wrote:
| The one I know of was a Samsung which didn't really succeed
| at water tightness.
| nulld3v wrote:
| Are you talking about the S5? It has a removable battery
| and has an IP67 rating so it should definitely be
| watertight.
| constantcrying wrote:
| >It has a removable battery and has an IP67 rating so it
| should definitely be watertight.
|
| Yes, there is a mechanical cover which keeps the _very
| small_ battery away from moisture. The risk with these
| mechanical covers is that they deform under pressure and
| let water enter. It is difficult engineering challenge
| and anecdotally it didn 't work _that_ reliably.
|
| Glueing phones makes the engineering simpler as it
| removes the need for any kind of screws and mechanical
| locking mechanism, instead all electrical conponents can
| be fit very tightly into the interior of the phone.
| jalk wrote:
| Divers don't change
| jacobp100 wrote:
| I think the way the current non-pro models handle batteries is
| good. You only need to remove the back, and then you get direct
| access to the battery
| alexcombessie wrote:
| Great news! It should stop electronic waste and bad << planned
| obsolescence >> practices from smartphone manufacturers
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-16 23:00 UTC)