Hacker News Reader

Comment by netfl0 | Hacker News Reader

Overdue for sure. I wonder if there could be unintended side effects, I can’t think of any…

A couple that come to mind:

This will make various compact designs difficult/impossible (such as airpods or other small wireless earbuds).

This will make waterproofing difficult/impossible/lower quality for many device classes (phones, earbuds, etc). Waterproofing on these devices requires adhesive (not easily replaceable) or ultrasonic welding (not user serviceable at all).

Depending on what it actually does, we can predict side effects by imagining it was in place 10 years ago. What if the Apple Watch required a user-replaceable battery? Would the design have changed demonstrably to accommodate this design restriction?

In that case it would probably affect water resistance.

Haven’t we had water resistant watches for quite a long time already?

Why? There are children's water toys that take batteries and do a fine job keeping the water out of the compartment.

My water-resistant watches with user replaceable batteries beg to differ. I bet the margin wouldn't be as high but it would certainly be doable from an engineering point of view.

Just curious, which watch(es) do you have?

I don't know about OP, but as far is I know every "non-smart" watch that is waterproof has a replaceable and standard sized battery. Normally, you also have to replace the o-ring, which are also pretty standard.

Water resistance was my first thought as well, however I suspect a company with the R&D budget of Apple could likely find a way. The small dimensions of the watch might be a problem, but for phones I'm fairly certain it can be done.

For a while companies like Motorola were selling nano-repellent (essentially hydrophobic) coating phones and calling them splash proof. You could easily design a gasket or something, existing waterproof phones already have parts that open for eg the sim card or microsd slot (which are gasketed).

I've got an IP-68 (or whatever is waterproof) phone with a user-replaceable batter. It effectively has weather stripping along the battery door, and uses a screw to keep it tight. It's cheap, simple, and effective. (and no, it's not a smart phone)

So this would impact big players less, leaving startups in a more difficult position. That's regressive.

If they want to design, manufacture, and sell rugged devices, then they should shoulder the costs.

If they don't want to, then they can make something less rugged.

No excuses for resource waste and pollution.

Important to note here is that when it comes to household gadgets and personal electronics, not everything needs to be engineered to have water resistance like a diver's watch.

Making sure something survives splashes or a minute at the bottom of the swimming pool will be enough to keep most of these things working.

Cheap quartz watches have been waterproof since whenever, and all have replaceable batteries. Why is an apple watch any different?

Bullshit. Watches (mechanical and quartz) have been water resistant since forever.

More expensive phones, more materials wasted, bulkier phones.

But on the flip side, phones can last twice as long (or longer, assuming the software and other hardware doesn't crap out instead) and the total materials in that time are one phone plus two batteries, not two phones and two batteries.

The choice should be up to the consumer, not the EU. We had phones with removable batteries co-exist with phones with non-removable batteries. Most people preferred a slimmer, more attractive device and chose that over a removable battery. Ditto with keyboards. I would have preferred a phone with a hardware keyboard and a removable battery, but my tastes are niche. That doesn't mean I want a regulator to force the issue.

Except it's never a straight choice to a consumer.

If a company asked me do I want 50% more battery life or 1mm thinner, I'm going for the battery. And lots of people would. How many people moan about their battery, and how many say "ooo, I with this phone was just a hair thinner"?

But you don't get a choice, because it's all bundled up with other features to make it for you. Want NFC? Ok, you have to have the flagship model with the thinner case.

Oh, you want the bigger battery, sorry we don't actually do one because we only had one model called the FailChungus 0.1 with a big battery and no one bought it (never mind that it came only in brown and had a 480x480 screen).

Same for the 3.5mm jacks: no one has ever gone out and deliberately bought a phone without them. You just don't get a choice if you want everything else. I specifically got a non-flagship phone to keep that port, but I missed out on a lot of other stuff.

While it's nice to think that consumers lead these choices, I don't think that's actually what's happening: the illusion of choice is given but the companies gradually do what they wanted to do anyway.

Thanks, I wanted to say something very similar. "Choice by wallet" is a nice theory and even in practice it can work (e.g. buying fairtrade, organic meat alternatives IF you can afford it). But in that case it failed. And the manufacturers have little incentives to make it succeed - after all, buying these high margin products more often is in their shared interest. So even a first mover to offer flagship phones with removable batteries (again) would just cut their profits a little less than the competition. Proof for claim: If phones with replaceable batteries were competitive in the current market, they would be offered.

I think it can not be denied that the current smartphone business has a negative ecological impact (waste during the whole life cycle except during usage) and additionally also a negative social impact (manufacturing conditions as well as rare material extraction; not sure if broken phones are shipped to Africa like other e-trash, but would expect that as well). These long-term impacts are not in our interest, but no individual alone can change that in the current market. But that's often the case: If we are not strong enough alone, we work together and bundle our power. Like in a state or even above the state level.

The more variables any one product as, the less 'choice by wallet' works.

Choosing between a battery-farm chicken and a free-range chicken has one variable - the provenance. But then let's say you like KFC for their 'secret' spice blend. But KFC don't care for offering free-range chicken. If you want that spicy chicken: you can sacrifice your preference for free-range chicken, get spicy chicken from somewhere else (not what you wanted), or go without.

Smart devices have many more variables. So the likelihood of something you want not being there is much greater.

And once a feature has been removed from such products, it partly becomes self-fulfilling.

"I think it can not be denied that the current smartphone business has a negative ecological impact"

Living has a negative ecological impact.

How do you measure that? People seem to get more benefit out of the phones than their cost.

> More expensive phones

Phones aren't cheaper now than when they've had user replaceable batteries:

Galaxy S5 (2014): $650 ($780 in 2022)

Galaxy S22 (2022): $800

Global warming was less of a problem during the golden age of piracy.

That comparison is complete nonsense, as presumably the specs of those phones are completely different. You can now get cheap phones that perform better than a 2014 S5.

To keep up the sales, they will have to find other methods of planned obsolescence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com