The EU regulates that by 2027, all phones be equipped with replaceable batteries(twitter.com)
twitter.com
The EU regulates that by 2027, all phones be equipped with replaceable batteries
https://twitter.com/mingchikuo/status/1807432542934732953
126 comments
Makes sense and it will also increase the longevity of phones. I welcome the change.
It doesn't have to be as easy as it was with e.g. the Samsung S5 or the xcovers (which, by the way are still waterproof). But as far as i understand it a simple tool like a screwdriver can be used.
It also means I won't have to mollycoddle my phone battery so much (limiting charge to 80% etc) because I can just charge it and get a fresh one after a year or 2-3.
It doesn't have to be as easy as it was with e.g. the Samsung S5 or the xcovers (which, by the way are still waterproof). But as far as i understand it a simple tool like a screwdriver can be used.
It also means I won't have to mollycoddle my phone battery so much (limiting charge to 80% etc) because I can just charge it and get a fresh one after a year or 2-3.
> From my understanding, the most important point was to make it easier to recycle rare earth minerals in rechargeable batteries...
I guess because from a user point of view it doesn't make much sense: by the time the battery is dead, the phone is so outdated it serves no use anymore. And this comes as someone using old smartphones (still on their first battery).
I guess because from a user point of view it doesn't make much sense: by the time the battery is dead, the phone is so outdated it serves no use anymore. And this comes as someone using old smartphones (still on their first battery).
Phones are supported for 5-7 years across the major makers. My battery is down to 70% of its original capacity in half that time, no longer able to make a full day's use.
Being able to easily swap in a brand new battery at the half way point in a phone's lifetime and get back to full day usage so typical overnight charging instead of needing a second mid-day charge cycle, is a huge win.
That you think a 3 or 4 year old phone is outdated when the makers support it for up to twice that long is ludicrous, and even then it's silly to have to toss it because the maker won't provide further security updates. I'd use a phone 10 years, about what I use my laptops for, if the battery was easily replaceable. Instead, they land in a drawer every 3-4 years when the battery isn't good enough and a the cost of manufacturer replacement in dollars and downtime is so exorbitant that I just buy a new device.
Being able to easily swap in a brand new battery at the half way point in a phone's lifetime and get back to full day usage so typical overnight charging instead of needing a second mid-day charge cycle, is a huge win.
That you think a 3 or 4 year old phone is outdated when the makers support it for up to twice that long is ludicrous, and even then it's silly to have to toss it because the maker won't provide further security updates. I'd use a phone 10 years, about what I use my laptops for, if the battery was easily replaceable. Instead, they land in a drawer every 3-4 years when the battery isn't good enough and a the cost of manufacturer replacement in dollars and downtime is so exorbitant that I just buy a new device.
> Phones are supported for 5-7 years across the major makers.
More like 3-4 for android vendors, with the exception of google, and it’s a new thing for them.
More like 3-4 for android vendors, with the exception of google, and it’s a new thing for them.
The main Android vendor Samsung now supports 7 years.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and...
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and...
I'm perfectly happy with the performance of my iPhone SE (2020), and it's still receiving software updates, but the battery is severely degraded. The same was true for my first-generation iPhone SE; I was able to get a cheap replacement back then due to Apple's battery replacement program related to batterygate.
Access to cheap replacement batteries would definitely have an impact when deciding whether I should replace my phone or not. I believe Apple even mentioned the battery replacement program being a factor contributing to lower-than-expected sales a few years ago (sorry, can't find the source).
Access to cheap replacement batteries would definitely have an impact when deciding whether I should replace my phone or not. I believe Apple even mentioned the battery replacement program being a factor contributing to lower-than-expected sales a few years ago (sorry, can't find the source).
> I guess because from a user point of view it doesn't make much sense: by the time the battery is dead, the phone is so outdated it serves no use anymore
My previous phone lasted four years, and really I only replaced it because I have more money than sense and wanted a 120hz screen. iPhone 11 Pro, came out nearly five years ago, still totally fine, lots of them in circulation. The battery was certainly beginning to show its age by the end, but the phone was otherwise fine.
Your point was maybe valid a decade ago, but phones last much, much longer these days. And getting supported still longer; current phones, particularly on the high end, are far faster than they need to be to support the OS, and rate of hardware change has slowed significantly (Apple, say, hasn't had a full-blown microarch change in years, with the M1-4 and their sibling A-whatevers being very much incremental progress on each other).
My previous phone lasted four years, and really I only replaced it because I have more money than sense and wanted a 120hz screen. iPhone 11 Pro, came out nearly five years ago, still totally fine, lots of them in circulation. The battery was certainly beginning to show its age by the end, but the phone was otherwise fine.
Your point was maybe valid a decade ago, but phones last much, much longer these days. And getting supported still longer; current phones, particularly on the high end, are far faster than they need to be to support the OS, and rate of hardware change has slowed significantly (Apple, say, hasn't had a full-blown microarch change in years, with the M1-4 and their sibling A-whatevers being very much incremental progress on each other).
The submission title has almost nothing to do with the meat of the announcement. This unfortunately is buried in a link from a tweet, quoted by another tweet, about 2-3x past the threshold of effort most people put into reading to get to the point.
This is a manufacturer of stainless steel battery cases announcing Apple will use them for the battery in the iPhone 16 [0].
> Sunway is a major supplier of stainless steel battery cases.
> Apple uses the stainless steel battery case for the first time as a thermal solution
> Looking forward to 2025, if all 2H25 new iPhones adopt this new design
[0] https://medium.com/@mingchikuo/%E4%BF%A1%E7%B6%AD%E9%80%9A%E...
This is a manufacturer of stainless steel battery cases announcing Apple will use them for the battery in the iPhone 16 [0].
> Sunway is a major supplier of stainless steel battery cases.
> Apple uses the stainless steel battery case for the first time as a thermal solution
> Looking forward to 2025, if all 2H25 new iPhones adopt this new design
[0] https://medium.com/@mingchikuo/%E4%BF%A1%E7%B6%AD%E9%80%9A%E...
I don't care about the material of batteries in apple's phones. I care much more about user-replaceable batteries. I don't think I'm alone in that and I don't see why the iphone 16 battery should somehow be the "meat" of the announcement.
> I care much more about user-replaceable batteries
Then I strongly encourage a trip down memory lane to one year ago when this was actually decided and discussed [0]. Lots of good info there on exactly this topic.
> I don't see why the iphone 16 battery should somehow be the "meat" of the announcement.
Because behind the misleading title of the submission that "The EU regulates [...]" is really content about the material Apple will use.
I already mentioned this and quoted that content to avoid too much of the discussion being besides the point and reduce the threshold of effort needed to get the info down to approximately 0. Still too high I take it?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36361510
Then I strongly encourage a trip down memory lane to one year ago when this was actually decided and discussed [0]. Lots of good info there on exactly this topic.
> I don't see why the iphone 16 battery should somehow be the "meat" of the announcement.
Because behind the misleading title of the submission that "The EU regulates [...]" is really content about the material Apple will use.
I already mentioned this and quoted that content to avoid too much of the discussion being besides the point and reduce the threshold of effort needed to get the info down to approximately 0. Still too high I take it?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36361510
I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
It's a bit hard to find good pictures of it, but the original Kyocera Torque from 2013 was IP 67 and had a user-replaceable battery. Its back had a large fingernail-turnable latch and pretty well-designed seal.
Say what you will about the aesthetics of the handset, it's proof that waterproof, user-replaceable batteries are absolutely possible on a consumer handset.
https://www.gsmarena.com/kyocera_torque_e6710-5270.php
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3ds-kyocera-torque-e671...
Say what you will about the aesthetics of the handset, it's proof that waterproof, user-replaceable batteries are absolutely possible on a consumer handset.
https://www.gsmarena.com/kyocera_torque_e6710-5270.php
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3ds-kyocera-torque-e671...
Or the Samsung Xcover Pro 6[1] that ships with a user replaceable battery like in the good old days, yet still has water resistance, so it is definitely possible, they just don't want to do it on the entire range of phones.
Also, why do we need proof from modern phones? We've had cheap plastic wrist watches that can be submerged and operated under water for decades. The secret? Stainless steel back, screwed on the plastic body with a rubber gasket in between. Why can't phones use this "outstanding" innovation from 60 years ago? I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
[1] https://www.androidpolice.com/samsung-xcover6-pro-review/
Also, why do we need proof from modern phones? We've had cheap plastic wrist watches that can be submerged and operated under water for decades. The secret? Stainless steel back, screwed on the plastic body with a rubber gasket in between. Why can't phones use this "outstanding" innovation from 60 years ago? I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
[1] https://www.androidpolice.com/samsung-xcover6-pro-review/
>Why can't phones use this "outstanding" innovation from 60 years ago?
Because it requires too much space. It works on watches because they are small, if you tried to screw in a phone back plate with 4 screws, it wouldn't seal at the sides, as pressure is too low.
>I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
They already have found a way to tightly and reversibly seal a phone, which allows for repairs of components and is low cost. It is called glue and pretty much the optimal way to seal a phone.
Because it requires too much space. It works on watches because they are small, if you tried to screw in a phone back plate with 4 screws, it wouldn't seal at the sides, as pressure is too low.
>I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
They already have found a way to tightly and reversibly seal a phone, which allows for repairs of components and is low cost. It is called glue and pretty much the optimal way to seal a phone.
>if you tried to screw in a phone back plate with 4 screws
You don't think Apple or Samsung can afford more screws?
>They already have found a way to tightly and reversibly seal a phone, which allows for repairs of components and is low cost. It is called glue and pretty much the optimal way to seal a phone.
Have you been paying attention to anything written on this thread? We don't need phones to be sealed with glue for water resistance as that's just a forced obsolescence design choice.
You don't think Apple or Samsung can afford more screws?
>They already have found a way to tightly and reversibly seal a phone, which allows for repairs of components and is low cost. It is called glue and pretty much the optimal way to seal a phone.
Have you been paying attention to anything written on this thread? We don't need phones to be sealed with glue for water resistance as that's just a forced obsolescence design choice.
> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance
My wristwatch from 50 years ago can be submerged to a depth of 300 feet. I am sure companies that can assemble microchips have no trouble figuring out the technology from half a decade ago when they have to.
> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery
I have not taken my phone diving yet, but I (and friends/relatives) have had phones which would have lived another year or two if the battery was easier to replace.
> battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
The goal of the law is to reduce e-waste. It would be nice if all aspects which dictate the lifetime of a device (e.g. software updates) were extended as far as possible.
My wristwatch from 50 years ago can be submerged to a depth of 300 feet. I am sure companies that can assemble microchips have no trouble figuring out the technology from half a decade ago when they have to.
> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery
I have not taken my phone diving yet, but I (and friends/relatives) have had phones which would have lived another year or two if the battery was easier to replace.
> battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
The goal of the law is to reduce e-waste. It would be nice if all aspects which dictate the lifetime of a device (e.g. software updates) were extended as far as possible.
It's not only about diving though, any drop into sea or pool might be affected, and even if you aren't submerging you'll have the peace of mind of using the phone near a body of water.
Regarding the battery, my phone is also almost 2 years old and I haven't even noticed a decrease in capacity in practical real world even though the battery capacity is reduced to 85%.
I'm okay with reducing e-waste of course, but I'm not okay with EU dictating companies about their product design. Instead of enforcement, there should be incentivization (e.g. if you make battery replaceable, lowered taxing etc).
Regarding the battery, my phone is also almost 2 years old and I haven't even noticed a decrease in capacity in practical real world even though the battery capacity is reduced to 85%.
I'm okay with reducing e-waste of course, but I'm not okay with EU dictating companies about their product design. Instead of enforcement, there should be incentivization (e.g. if you make battery replaceable, lowered taxing etc).
How about an opt out for a cost neutral swap by phone makers? So Apple will swap out the battery for free, keeping your waterproofness and you just pay for the material cost of a battery or supply your own. Then they can design how they want. There's extra costs on them, but tough shit.
And when the phone is 4 years old and won't make a full day without a second charge (as opposed to just overnight) then you'll probably simply replace it despite it being good for another 4 years, easily, if it had a new battery. That may be fine for you, but not all of us are so filthy rich.
"What's with the US government mandating seat belts in foreign cars sold here!!! How dare they! Instead of requiring seat belts, the US government should offer tax breaks to auto makers who do offer seat belts. Surely that's the right way to incentivize them."
"What's with the US's 'Tylenol bill' that requires tamper proof cases on over the counter medications to prevent another cyanide murder case like the one in 1982? How dare the US government interfere in the design of drug makers' product packaging. Instead of enforcement, they should have just given a big fat tax break any of over the counter medication producers that voluntarily decided to offer tamper proof containers. That would surely be in the public's best interest, right?"
Your arguments are weak, my friend. Do better.
"What's with the US government mandating seat belts in foreign cars sold here!!! How dare they! Instead of requiring seat belts, the US government should offer tax breaks to auto makers who do offer seat belts. Surely that's the right way to incentivize them."
"What's with the US's 'Tylenol bill' that requires tamper proof cases on over the counter medications to prevent another cyanide murder case like the one in 1982? How dare the US government interfere in the design of drug makers' product packaging. Instead of enforcement, they should have just given a big fat tax break any of over the counter medication producers that voluntarily decided to offer tamper proof containers. That would surely be in the public's best interest, right?"
Your arguments are weak, my friend. Do better.
If you have an iPhone and want a new battery, it doesn’t cost much to have Apple replace the battery for you. It’s much cheaper than buying a new phone.
Personal anecdote: I had to replace 3 smartphones out of my pocket because they fallen into nice, soft snow (over the years).
Different manufacturers, same answer: water damage - you’re on your own bud!
On the other hand I had 0 problems replacing dying or faulty battery.
I also side on waterproofing side of things.
Different manufacturers, same answer: water damage - you’re on your own bud!
On the other hand I had 0 problems replacing dying or faulty battery.
I also side on waterproofing side of things.
Most High end devices have 7 years of update now (Samsung, Google pixels). No current Gen battery can last that long.
because the manufacturers are not required to make them last that long. if they were required to, they would alter the chemistry / capacity of the battery instantly and this would be solved.
Is there a lithium ion battery chemistry that lasts 8 years after being manufactured and ~3,000 discharge cycles without significant (10+%) degradation?
LiFePO4 can (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1945-7111/abae37/... Figure 1), although I would still like to be able to change my battery.
My Samsung S5 was water resistant (IP67) and had user-replaceable batteries. They solved it by having an "O-ring" gasket around the periphery of the case[1].
[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s5-smart...
[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s5-smart...
I have several Garmin GPS devices used for hiking and they've been handling soaking multi-day hikes, with one of them being fully submerged for over an hour, and they only have a IPX7 rating, and they have replaceable batteries.
I keep my iPhones for years, and the only thing showing the age is the battery.
I keep my iPhones for years, and the only thing showing the age is the battery.
I have been using smartphones since the first iPhone and have never ever found myself in the situation of needing a fully watertight phone.
Besides, the cycling GPS I bought in the 2010s had a replaceable battery and IP68 rating, you just need orings around removable parts to make it so.
Besides, the cycling GPS I bought in the 2010s had a replaceable battery and IP68 rating, you just need orings around removable parts to make it so.
Water damage one of the top causes of phone repair. They happened commonly enough --- and people lied about this happening enough --- for Apple (and many others) to add hardware checks for internal moisture.
Water-resistant phones help a lot here.
Water-resistant phones help a lot here.
I shoot underwater A LOT, and even if I never used it that way I'd prefer peace of mind of not having water damage in a potential situation, over a replaceable battery that I've never needed to replace in a single device in my entire life.
So the rest of us should suffer because 0.00001% of smartphones get used under water A LOT? That's just silly.
How about you buy an underwater case for your piece of mind and we all get the battery replacement we want while still getting the rare and accidental fall in the pool or toilet easily protected against.
How about you buy an underwater case for your piece of mind and we all get the battery replacement we want while still getting the rare and accidental fall in the pool or toilet easily protected against.
I don’t shoot underwater. My phone has been accidentally submerged. Sure am glad it was fine. Also, I’ve had iPhone batteries replaced several times over the years. It’s not expensive.
There are waterproof watches and cameras with replaceable batteries. This waterproofing argument has always been an excuse from the manufacturer.
Glueing phones shut is done because with a minimal footprint you have a very good seal.
The alternatives are all worse, either requiring too much space or being susceptible to the seal being broken. If this rule takes effect, phone design will have to change and quite likely many complaints will be had about phones failing at their advertised rating.
Glue is a fairly easily reversible process, which allows basically any repair shop, when parts are available, to perform a repair. Even hobbyists with basic equipment can do it.
The alternatives are all worse, either requiring too much space or being susceptible to the seal being broken. If this rule takes effect, phone design will have to change and quite likely many complaints will be had about phones failing at their advertised rating.
Glue is a fairly easily reversible process, which allows basically any repair shop, when parts are available, to perform a repair. Even hobbyists with basic equipment can do it.
Screws and gaskets are just as compact (see literally any wristwatch), but slightly more expensive. This, and probably some planned obsolescence, is the only reason why phones are glued together.
>Screws and gaskets are just as compact (see literally any wristwatch)
No, obviously screws require significantly more space.
>This, and probably some planned obsolescence, is the only reason why phones are glued together.
Seals are reversible and can be easily replaced by any half way competent repair shop.
No, obviously screws require significantly more space.
>This, and probably some planned obsolescence, is the only reason why phones are glued together.
Seals are reversible and can be easily replaced by any half way competent repair shop.
Phones have been using screws for years, it’ll be okay, we can handle screws and phones, we have the tech to accomplish this with minimal increase in size.
You realy think the screws are the weakest link in the chain towards thinner phones? Because if they are not, your remarks on thinner seals are irrelevant.
If Jaeger-LeCoultre managed to screw together a cm-sized watch in 1929, Apple should be able to manage it with a ten times larger iPhone.
the assumption being that if apple did not, then apple could not. this assumption seems flimsy. it also implies that the only correct approach would be screws and gaskets. and assumes that larger is easier.
goodness.
goodness.
> quite likely many complaints will be had about phones failing at their advertised rating.
They already often do and manufacturers usually deny warranty due to water ingress which is really ridiculous on a supposedly waterproof phone.
At least this way it's easier to check and clean.
Also, the circuit boards themselves can be conformal coated leading to it not being such a big deal when water gets in.
They already often do and manufacturers usually deny warranty due to water ingress which is really ridiculous on a supposedly waterproof phone.
At least this way it's easier to check and clean.
Also, the circuit boards themselves can be conformal coated leading to it not being such a big deal when water gets in.
>They already often do
Now imagine if the seal is being held down by a plastic clip and can be primed open by the tiniest amount of force.
Now imagine if the seal is being held down by a plastic clip and can be primed open by the tiniest amount of force.
It doesn't really matter. In practive it's only usable as minor rain protection anyway. I'm not bringing my phone into the shower.
And like people have mentioned, the most rugged phones do have replaceable batteries. I used to have an Xcover for hiking and it never had any issues with water ingress either.
And like people have mentioned, the most rugged phones do have replaceable batteries. I used to have an Xcover for hiking and it never had any issues with water ingress either.
Y'know, Nokia phones (before the whole smartphone fad) were famous for being solid. That is to say, the joke was that if you dropped your phone off a skyscraper you'd just have to pick it up and it'd just work. And as far as I recall they required precisely zero equipment in order to take the battery out.
Yes, but they had no ingress protection. The components just survived the water. Totally not applicable to modern phones.
This is a cop out, there are many devices that have replaceable batteries and are used in harsher environments.
Apple is a multibillion dollar company they can afford to take some minor hits here and there to their profit margins to make this work.
Apple is a multibillion dollar company they can afford to take some minor hits here and there to their profit margins to make this work.
I don't know how it compares in general, but quickly swappable/replaceable battery was the main reason I selected the Samsung XCover6 Pro, and it has an IP68 rating.
You are talking like any normal consumer is going spearfishing with his smartphone. They're not. Being able to deal with some rain at most it's all it's needed for normal use and was achievable by electronics with replaceable batteries for decades.
Any more than that is just falling for the spiel given by companies known to be hostile to de idea of prolonging the lifetime of their products.
Any more than that is just falling for the spiel given by companies known to be hostile to de idea of prolonging the lifetime of their products.
When I am traveling away from all my charging cords, I carry a battery pack in my pocket. I care about that much more than the once in a lifetime drenching I got in a tropical deluge in Shanghai that made my phone inoperable for a few days
This is a solved problem and many phones had it before the “let’s make it as hard as possible to change phone batteries” craze kicked in. Apple has the tech to do this, as does Samsung.
[deleted]
Counterpoint, no-one I know cares about water resistance.
The only time it matters is when using a phone in the rain. There are no other real situations in which I need a phone with me.
And a basic rubber seal is far more than enough unless you drop the thing in a pond.
The only time it matters is when using a phone in the rain. There are no other real situations in which I need a phone with me.
And a basic rubber seal is far more than enough unless you drop the thing in a pond.
I’d say these days it’s essentially required. Common example: I had my phone in my pocket while headed to a pool party. Totally forget it was in my pocket and just got in the pool. Absolutely no problem, just pulled it out (after it was in the pool for minutes) and everything was fine. No panic. In comparison, I remember doing the same thing many years ago with a moto razr. Even after rice and drying and pulling the battery, it was toast. Had to get a new phone.
Required for who? It's fine that you need it. But I think you overestimate the number of people who simultaneously go to pool parties, jump in with their jacket on, and don't have accidental damage insurance.
Replacing your phone with accidental damage insurance is a lot more troublesome than going to Apple on the occasion you want a new battery. Insurance is often much more expensive.
the assertion from grandparent comment was that nobody needed it. parent asserts that yes, they do.
it’s nice that you don’t need it, but lots of people do. It’s a pretty basic durability/longevity thing.
don’t worry you can always move the goalposts back to “but you can waterproof a phone with a removable battery”, that’s a much more defensible bailey. “Literally nobody uses waterproofing” just was never a strong argument.
it’s nice that you don’t need it, but lots of people do. It’s a pretty basic durability/longevity thing.
don’t worry you can always move the goalposts back to “but you can waterproof a phone with a removable battery”, that’s a much more defensible bailey. “Literally nobody uses waterproofing” just was never a strong argument.
My argument is not that water resistance is not required but that it has always been present.
Older phones were already water resistant. You just couldn't chuck them in a pond.
It's a total non issue. If our Game Boys collectively survived our childhoods then a phone with far fewer ingress points is going to be fine.
You can't even use it in the rain because capacative touchscreens.
Waterproof phones are marketing.
Older phones were already water resistant. You just couldn't chuck them in a pond.
It's a total non issue. If our Game Boys collectively survived our childhoods then a phone with far fewer ingress points is going to be fine.
You can't even use it in the rain because capacative touchscreens.
Waterproof phones are marketing.
I run with my phone. Sometimes I get caught in the rain. Water resistance matters a lot to me.
I don't know how much resistance that needs, but I'd also really like it to withstand the occasional drop in a pond.
If a plain rubber seal does that, fantastic. Though I'd really like to be 100% certain that I've closed things sufficiently.
I don't know how much resistance that needs, but I'd also really like it to withstand the occasional drop in a pond.
If a plain rubber seal does that, fantastic. Though I'd really like to be 100% certain that I've closed things sufficiently.
Rain, or even a short time at the bottom of the pool, is easily managed with a simple seal compatible with user replaceable batteries. Failure rates will be a tiny bit higher because users won't always get the closure perfect, but that's not going to affect most people. What will affect most people is an immediate two or three year extension in the life of their phones with a $15 Amazon.com order.
That's hundreds of dollars a year in savings. For me it would be about $330/yr in savings, enough to cover my streaming video and music bills completely. That savings falls in half if my time is valuable and I've got to drive to an Apple store and pay $90 for the replacement, so I've never done that. Instead, I go on Amazon.com and order an entirely new phone when my battery gets to be an issue.
I think replaceable batteries will make calculus work for me and billions of others over the long haul. Maybe 50% of consumers take advantage and save money, 49.999% never notice or care, and 0.001% miss scuba diving raw-dog with their smartphones and have to buy a specialized case for piece of mind.
That's hundreds of dollars a year in savings. For me it would be about $330/yr in savings, enough to cover my streaming video and music bills completely. That savings falls in half if my time is valuable and I've got to drive to an Apple store and pay $90 for the replacement, so I've never done that. Instead, I go on Amazon.com and order an entirely new phone when my battery gets to be an issue.
I think replaceable batteries will make calculus work for me and billions of others over the long haul. Maybe 50% of consumers take advantage and save money, 49.999% never notice or care, and 0.001% miss scuba diving raw-dog with their smartphones and have to buy a specialized case for piece of mind.
Apple will swap out an iPhone battery for $100. 3rd party shops are cheaper. You’d have to replace your phone battery 4x a year to save $300+ dollars.
I think he was saying that he just replaces his whole phone rather than pay Apple to replace the battery (including the effort of getting the phone to them and waiting while they do it). (It took me a while to interpret that.)
I suppose that there will be some number of phone replacements delayed if battery replacement were cheaper and easier. But I'd bet it's a relatively narrow range between "willing to let a pro do it" and "might as well upgrade the features anyway".
I suppose that there will be some number of phone replacements delayed if battery replacement were cheaper and easier. But I'd bet it's a relatively narrow range between "willing to let a pro do it" and "might as well upgrade the features anyway".
He's saying if he could buy a battery on Amazon then he’d do that over buying a new phone. You can actually buy iPhone batteries and they come with the tools to replace it now. He is buying a new phone because he wants a new phone. Anyone that wants to save $300/year can easily save that money already in a few ways. Apple repair, third party repair shops, or a DIY kit on Amazon.
I care, many people care if you’re around the water at all. I think it’s practically a mandate these days that a phone can survive a dip in the pool at least for a few minutes.
I've had a "waterproof" flagship phone for years now, but still would never intentionally test it.
Apparently, almost everybody other than you DOES care about water resistance.
It sounds to me like the population of HN all have swimming pools in their back garden and walk around with their iPhone in their trunks.
I don't consider this a real world position. Literally no-one I know, thousands of people at minimum, has this issue.
I don't consider this a real world position. Literally no-one I know, thousands of people at minimum, has this issue.
[deleted]
No reason you can’t have both
Yeah. I want IP67 and have to replace my battery every 2 years.
I don’t mind taking it to Apple for that. It’s less often than my car went back to the dealer for service. And my dealer wouldn’t give me a new car if they fuck up my old one in the process (Apple did this when they broke mine during a battery swap).
I don’t mind taking it to Apple for that. It’s less often than my car went back to the dealer for service. And my dealer wouldn’t give me a new car if they fuck up my old one in the process (Apple did this when they broke mine during a battery swap).
Replaceable or user replaceable, quite the important distinction. Don’t know of any phone you can’t replace the battery, quite hard to do yourself though on a lot of them.
> The regulation provides that by 2027 portable batteries incorporated into appliances should be removable and replaceable by the end-user, leaving sufficient time for operators to adapt the design of their products to this requirement. This is an important provision for consumers. Light means of transport batteries will need to be replaceable by an independent professional.
From https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...
From https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...
Thanks for the link. This will make most of what’s being sold today incompatible with the legislation, it’s going to be interesting to see how this works out for things that are not phones, probably back to AA batteries and finicky plastic lids.
Screwdrivers are allowed, there is no need for it to be doable at gunpoint.
Although, I've had my xcover6 pro for 2 years now. it's been in water several times, dropped many times (I think the back bursting off does indeed help dissipate energy). The screen is still fine (well, some minor scratches that I think are due to putting it in same pocket as my keys far too often), and I've not had any issues. As far as I can tell the battery is sealed off from everything that is important, and there is a rubber gasket around the battery as well. I have a second backup battery for it, and I can rapidly swap between the 2 in a few seconds. The back is a little plain and ugly, but I don't see why it couldn't be snazzed up to apple standards (metal shell or whatever) and still be a quick replacement.
No, it doesn't necessarily. And yes, IANAL.
When you look at the regulation [1], you see several potential loopholes.
Firstly, the regulation does not say an appliance MUST allow removal and replacement of batteries by end-users, but SHOULD allow it.
The capability is not meant to allow for swapping batteries to increase user comfort (e.g. by replacing a dying one with a new one), but primarily to allow for disposal and recycling of the battery. This is likely to create new EU legislations that put more burdens on the end-user (e.g. having to remove and separately dispose of the battery instead of dropping the device off at a recycling center).
Then, in paragraph 38, a battery is considered replaceable by the end-user if the end-user can replace it with generally and commercially available tools. A manufacturer could, for instance, make replacement dependant on a tool that they individually sell for an absurd amount of money, and would be in compliance with the regulation.
In paragraph 39, the text shows again that there is no general requirement for a manufacturer to allow user-replacement in all cases. Some example given when this is not considered necessary are water-resistance, and safety concerns. A smartphone manufacturer could easily argue that the battery is too fragile to be handled by end-users and doing so risks lithium fires.
These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must', and which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
In subpoint 4, it points out that the list of excepted devices can be extended whenever they so feel like - all it takes is a series of kids who start burning themselves while mishandling batteries, ideally on social media, and smartphones are explicitly exempt after the outcry.
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
When you look at the regulation [1], you see several potential loopholes.
Firstly, the regulation does not say an appliance MUST allow removal and replacement of batteries by end-users, but SHOULD allow it.
The capability is not meant to allow for swapping batteries to increase user comfort (e.g. by replacing a dying one with a new one), but primarily to allow for disposal and recycling of the battery. This is likely to create new EU legislations that put more burdens on the end-user (e.g. having to remove and separately dispose of the battery instead of dropping the device off at a recycling center).
Then, in paragraph 38, a battery is considered replaceable by the end-user if the end-user can replace it with generally and commercially available tools. A manufacturer could, for instance, make replacement dependant on a tool that they individually sell for an absurd amount of money, and would be in compliance with the regulation.
In paragraph 39, the text shows again that there is no general requirement for a manufacturer to allow user-replacement in all cases. Some example given when this is not considered necessary are water-resistance, and safety concerns. A smartphone manufacturer could easily argue that the battery is too fragile to be handled by end-users and doing so risks lithium fires.
These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must', and which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
In subpoint 4, it points out that the list of excepted devices can be extended whenever they so feel like - all it takes is a series of kids who start burning themselves while mishandling batteries, ideally on social media, and smartphones are explicitly exempt after the outcry.
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
> And yes, IANAL.
Politely, you're presumably not a lawyer of European law.
> Then, in paragraph 38 [. . .] In paragraph 39
They're called Recitals, and I'm not sure why you're so focused on them. Recitals help clarify purpose but are not legally binding[1].
> These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must'
This proves the opposite of the point you're making. Shall denotes an obligation[2].
> which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
Come on. That's not a good faith interpretation of the exception.
[1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-6368?transi...
[2] https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/c45f5b70-2d0e... paragraph 10.27
Politely, you're presumably not a lawyer of European law.
> Then, in paragraph 38 [. . .] In paragraph 39
They're called Recitals, and I'm not sure why you're so focused on them. Recitals help clarify purpose but are not legally binding[1].
> These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must'
This proves the opposite of the point you're making. Shall denotes an obligation[2].
> which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
Come on. That's not a good faith interpretation of the exception.
[1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-6368?transi...
[2] https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/c45f5b70-2d0e... paragraph 10.27
Would be real nice with replaceable batteries, hdd, and ram for laptops too!
Buy a laptop that has that feature. I prefer my slim devices. I've been hauling Thinkpads around for long enough.
Here’s an example of a modern laptop with replaceable battery, disk and RAM: https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-zbook-firefly-14-inch-g...
If true, can someone please find a better source for this?
It was decided last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36361510
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...
User replaceable batteries by 2027 is old news. The new news seems to be how Apple plans to accomplish it.
User replaceable batteries by 2027 is old news. The new news seems to be how Apple plans to accomplish it.
This is such a great change. Most of the time my friend changing phone is because of the battery. The battery is dead, the phone is old, and replacing battery service is expensive, so they might as well buy a new one. Now with this, we will have another option to just replace the battery ourselve and move on (Well unless the manufacturers don't sell them)
I'm sensing that this may be too little or late. By 2027 our battery tech will probably have advanced that phones will be replaced sooner than their batteries deteriorate. To prevent e-waste we'll need more upgradable devices with user-exchangeable components beyond batteries. Still a move in the right direction.
As a redundancy in case battery tech improvements turn out to be slower, it's a good change.
What makes you think the battery technology we've been using in consumer electronic devices for the past 20 years will improve suddenly and dramatically in next 3 years?
It's not only the batteries, but charging circuits are getting much smarter about increasing the longevity of batteries, we also have eco cores that limit current draw for common tasks. All tech is getting better. The only thing that's concerning is if there's an increase demand for power running ML on device.
[deleted]
My 10y old phone sill has a lot of battery left. What I'm missing is a replaceable kernel!
What about laptops?
For that to have any actual positive effect, they need to also dictate some specification to be followed, so that you can actually re-use the batteries when they outlast the phones.. (broken phone, new phone and so on)
Batteries should be replaceable, but requiring them to be user replaceable, essentially banning glue seals, is ridiculous.
Glueing phones shut is a very effective way to guarantee longevity and make it safe from damage from water, sand and dust. Manufacturers should be required to provide replacement batteries and replacement seals, which allow any remotely competent repair shop to replace the battery, I there is a need for it.
Edit: If you are curious, this is one of the easier ways to get down voted on HN. This isn't the first time this topic came up, but as of now nobody has really tried to argue against this, which I always thought kind of disappointing.
Glueing phones shut is a very effective way to guarantee longevity and make it safe from damage from water, sand and dust. Manufacturers should be required to provide replacement batteries and replacement seals, which allow any remotely competent repair shop to replace the battery, I there is a need for it.
Edit: If you are curious, this is one of the easier ways to get down voted on HN. This isn't the first time this topic came up, but as of now nobody has really tried to argue against this, which I always thought kind of disappointing.
> Manufacturers should be required to provide replacement batteries and replacement seals, which allow any remotely competent repair shop to replace the battery, I there is a need for it.
Maybe, but the flip side of that is that competent repair shops are still a lot more expensive in most places than just buying a part from eBay that will do the job. Things like batteries for old phones that were user-replaceable were often $3-$5 depending on capacity and replacing them was trivial. But nowadays, something like a replacement screen requires fancy vacuum equipment and you have go to a shop.
I often go to Shenzhen in China, and if you have a damaged phone screen, they'll charge about $10 to replace it for you free while you wait. When I was in London, the cheapest repair quote I found was £100. The phone was only £150 when I got it new 2 years earlier and the newer model was available for £120, so I got that instead of getting a new screen for the old phone. Obviously, if you had a much more expensive phone, you'd just pay up for the replacement screen, but similarly if I'd had access to a replacement screen for $10 in the UK, I'd have just done that.
If we only insist on "repairable by a shop", I can imagine we'll probably still have the majority of phones in landfill at the end of their battery lives - because even if the battery could be replaced, if the cost is a decent chunk of the cost of a new phone, most people are going to just upgrade and get the new one anyway.
Maybe, but the flip side of that is that competent repair shops are still a lot more expensive in most places than just buying a part from eBay that will do the job. Things like batteries for old phones that were user-replaceable were often $3-$5 depending on capacity and replacing them was trivial. But nowadays, something like a replacement screen requires fancy vacuum equipment and you have go to a shop.
I often go to Shenzhen in China, and if you have a damaged phone screen, they'll charge about $10 to replace it for you free while you wait. When I was in London, the cheapest repair quote I found was £100. The phone was only £150 when I got it new 2 years earlier and the newer model was available for £120, so I got that instead of getting a new screen for the old phone. Obviously, if you had a much more expensive phone, you'd just pay up for the replacement screen, but similarly if I'd had access to a replacement screen for $10 in the UK, I'd have just done that.
If we only insist on "repairable by a shop", I can imagine we'll probably still have the majority of phones in landfill at the end of their battery lives - because even if the battery could be replaced, if the cost is a decent chunk of the cost of a new phone, most people are going to just upgrade and get the new one anyway.
I don't get why every phone has to get worse because people are unwilling to let people repair them. What is the point? If someone isn't going to a repair shop, he also might not bother to buy a new battery.
My point is the cost. Let's say you buy your shiny new iPhone for $1000. 5 years later the battery needs replacing. Maybe your phone model is still available (unlikely, but let's just imagine it)... normally Apple have $200 or $300 gap between the current and last year's model, and $100 between the previous generations. Let's say a brand new phone exactly the same as your 5 year old phone is now $500, so your old phone with its worn patches and scuffs and maybe the odd dent or scratch here and there is worth less. Now much less, who knows? Maybe it's been kept in pristine condition. And you take it to a shop for the battery replacement, they say it'll be $100 for a new battery. Is it worth it? Maybe. $100 for a phone that's worth at most $500. Maybe your charging port is getting a bit wobbly. Maybe your headphone jack is full of lint (OK, cruel joke), whatever. Either way, the cost of paying the shop to fit a new battery is a big chunk of the phone.
I've had several new batteries for phones in the past - for my old HTC One, which I think was about £5-8 (maybe $10) and i just popped off the cover and slid out the old one and slid the new one in. Getting the new battery at that price was a no brainer, even though I'd actually already got a NEW phone by then and was planning on just keeping the old phone as an emergency spare. If I had to pay £100 to keep it going, I wouldn't have bothered.
I've also had the old Nokia ones where the back that popped off actually was the battery. Those phones weren't water proof, but it'd be possible to have the same style battery connector with the phone side fully waterproofed, those 4 contacts on the back and the battery clipping to it. It'd probably be slightly thicker than current phones, but as most people put their phones in a case anyway, maybe well see a new class of integrated battery and case products that provide protection whilst not being much thicker than a stock battery.
I've had several new batteries for phones in the past - for my old HTC One, which I think was about £5-8 (maybe $10) and i just popped off the cover and slid out the old one and slid the new one in. Getting the new battery at that price was a no brainer, even though I'd actually already got a NEW phone by then and was planning on just keeping the old phone as an emergency spare. If I had to pay £100 to keep it going, I wouldn't have bothered.
I've also had the old Nokia ones where the back that popped off actually was the battery. Those phones weren't water proof, but it'd be possible to have the same style battery connector with the phone side fully waterproofed, those 4 contacts on the back and the battery clipping to it. It'd probably be slightly thicker than current phones, but as most people put their phones in a case anyway, maybe well see a new class of integrated battery and case products that provide protection whilst not being much thicker than a stock battery.
I agree that I don't particularly want my device to have to optimize its design for a once-every-two-years operation. I'm just fine with taking my phone to an expert for that, and having it optimized for size/weight/power/whatever for the other 729 days out of 730.
I know that people have been replacing their phones rather than getting a new battery, and that is a lot of waste. I hope that the new rule will shift people away from that. But for me I've never had a problem letting someone else do it for me.
I know that people have been replacing their phones rather than getting a new battery, and that is a lot of waste. I hope that the new rule will shift people away from that. But for me I've never had a problem letting someone else do it for me.
Say a trip to the repair shop comes with an inconvenience and price margin that discourages 80% of battery replacements of occurring. This throws phones in landfills before they need to be there.
You could argue that many more phones die this way than ones that do from exposure to water or fine sand. If so, a corollary could argue that the onus should be on those who need such features to rely on the aftermarket for them, for the sake of both the consumer and the health of the planet.
You could argue that many more phones die this way than ones that do from exposure to water or fine sand. If so, a corollary could argue that the onus should be on those who need such features to rely on the aftermarket for them, for the sake of both the consumer and the health of the planet.
If all that's needed to those 80% of prematurely discarded phones is a repair shop battery replacement then they would retain considerable value and a secondary market for them should develop. You can't stop people from throwing money away, but that's about the biggest incentive that can exist to change behaviour.
I don't want every single phone to be worse just because people are too lazy to go to a repair shop.
Inevitably not glueing phones shut will lead to an increase in waste as other mechanisms will fail more often.
Inevitably not glueing phones shut will lead to an increase in waste as other mechanisms will fail more often.
Well, I'm a data point of 1, but on my 1400€ 2021 phone the glue is failing and the back slowly coming off, so I wouldn't mind gasket and screws...
So iPhone19ish? I’m sure it will be touted as the greatest innovation,… the unapologetically battery replacement capable iPhone, the most advanced yet.
By 2027, phones should be using solid-state batteries that will outlive the phone.
It is more likely that by 2027 fairy tale about solid state batteries just around the corner will be still going strong.
Cool, next they'll try regulating IP68 and then they'll have some fun conversation about how regulations only go so far to protect consumers.
There is no conflict between IP68 and user-replacable batteries. Quartz watches have achieved this many decades ago.
every Samsung Galaxy XCover has IP68 and user replaceable battery.
Excellent FUD.
There are thousands trade offs going into each product. Demanding that a subset of these trade offs must include certain solutions in effect elevates those solutions' importance above all the other issues, past or future, encountered or unforeseen.
That is simply dumb. It prevents improvements, innovation and future advances of said product while pandering to a current political base sensible to said issues. It is another way a country stagnates,
That is simply dumb. It prevents improvements, innovation and future advances of said product while pandering to a current political base sensible to said issues. It is another way a country stagnates,
[deleted]
I hope apple has a way of detecting a genuine battery and alerting if it isn’t. I buy second hand and only want OEM parts.
That seems like a surefire way to attract the next EU regulation.
Why? Letting people know if a part is genuine empowers the user. I can’t think of a single reason that giving them more information is a bad thing.
The last time they didn’t let people know about battery information they were fined heavily, even though it prevented unwanted behaviour (reboots). If a third party battery can’t supply peak current demand, they will have to alert.
The last time they didn’t let people know about battery information they were fined heavily, even though it prevented unwanted behaviour (reboots). If a third party battery can’t supply peak current demand, they will have to alert.
Ah, I think I get the disconnect between you and others (including me) in this discussion: Currently, iPhones REFUSE to work if certain parts are not genuine. Theoretically, it would be possible to do the detection strictly on an informational basis ("Your battery is not a genuine Apple part. Go ahead, but don't blame us for issues.")
> Letting people know if a part is genuine empowers the user.
And putting DRM on hardware to prevent people using third-party peripherals disempowers the user, and should be illegal.
And putting DRM on hardware to prevent people using third-party peripherals disempowers the user, and should be illegal.
> And putting DRM on hardware to prevent people using third-party peripherals disempowers the user, and should be illegal.
This is not relevant to this discussion.
This is not relevant to this discussion.
Who are you to decide that? I find the concern very relevant to the discussion.
Because in my original reply I said “alerts” and not “blocks using drm”?
I have a preference for OEM parts. Other people can use a third party battery. Given the fire hazard on cheap batteries, I’ll pass.
I have a preference for OEM parts. Other people can use a third party battery. Given the fire hazard on cheap batteries, I’ll pass.
> Because in my original reply I said “alerts” and not “blocks using drm”?
And how soon before manufacturers move from the first to the second, if they are not stopped by law?
I have no objection to alerts per se, as long as it is done in a non-obnoxious way.
And how soon before manufacturers move from the first to the second, if they are not stopped by law?
I have no objection to alerts per se, as long as it is done in a non-obnoxious way.
Not sure, but if it was my own company I’d want to block third party batteries to ensure my users get the experience that I have designed and tested for.
If that wasn’t legal, then I’d want to at least log it. That way when someone claims my product burned down their house, I would have proof that it wasn’t my battery that did it.
This isn’t bullet proof however- if you are a big enough company the media headlines will still have your product in the headline, and you’d be lucky if the main body mentioned the manufacturer of the fault-causing component.
If that wasn’t legal, then I’d want to at least log it. That way when someone claims my product burned down their house, I would have proof that it wasn’t my battery that did it.
This isn’t bullet proof however- if you are a big enough company the media headlines will still have your product in the headline, and you’d be lucky if the main body mentioned the manufacturer of the fault-causing component.
As long as it doesn't prevent (or add frustration) you from using third-party batteries it doesn't seem like a bad thing.
And whatever they come up with will get reverse engineered anyway.
A few years back when phone batteries were almost always replaceable anyway, when buying replacement batteries you'd have expensive genuine batteries, expensive fake batteries, cheap fake batteries. It almost always made sense to buy the cheap fake ones knowing you might have to replacement them again sooner, than pay for the expensive one only to find it was exactly the same as the cheap one anyway.
I kind of think if there's DRM, the market will gravitate more towards expensive fake rather than cheap fake.
A few years back when phone batteries were almost always replaceable anyway, when buying replacement batteries you'd have expensive genuine batteries, expensive fake batteries, cheap fake batteries. It almost always made sense to buy the cheap fake ones knowing you might have to replacement them again sooner, than pay for the expensive one only to find it was exactly the same as the cheap one anyway.
I kind of think if there's DRM, the market will gravitate more towards expensive fake rather than cheap fake.
> It almost always made sense to buy the cheap fake ones knowing you might have to replacement them again sooner,
lovely how people throw away a working system that prevents this problem and returns us to the path of e-waste, while opposing even the idea of notifying the user about fake parts, all ostensibly in the name of preventing e-waste.
lovely how people throw away a working system that prevents this problem and returns us to the path of e-waste, while opposing even the idea of notifying the user about fake parts, all ostensibly in the name of preventing e-waste.
Then you are part of the problem.
Can you explain how letting people know if they have genuine parts or not is a bad thing? I can’t see any angle where giving the user this information is a bad thing. Is it just the HN Apple=Bad logic here?
From my understanding, the most important point was to make it easier to recycle rare earth minerals in rechargeable batteries so as not to be as reliant on countries outside the EU (read: China) where they are mined.
[0]. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...