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!
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.
https://www.gottabemobile.com/samsung-galaxy-s5-water-test-d....
So this is demonstrably possible. The only reason I can think of that it's not done anymore is cost savings.
I don't want my phone to look like that by law.
Asking unironically: what were they? I want such a phone
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.
But how are you gonna show all the ads, dark patterns and newsletter signup forms? We can't afford to miss out on all that growth and engagement.
There is a dive housing that can handle up to 60m depth, but that’s a special case.
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.
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.
Are you prepared to have a similar ratio for your phone? Basically the phones we have now with a permanent, very durable waterproof case?
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?
> 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
Parts often/usually last far in excess of what they're spec'd for as I'm sure you know. And many of the things you list aren't critical to operation like the battery is.
The vaunted Samsung s5, you still had to make sure that the battery was very secure and just right.
> https://www.gottabemobile.com/samsung-galaxy-s5-water-test-d...
> If you remove the battery, the Galaxy S5 will remind you to make sure the back cover is back in place securely.
The new law apparently doesn't require a user to be able to replace the battery by hand. Just that it is serviceable.
I think the new law would basically mean the end user doesn't have to deal with glue now at least.
Also, it is just ingenious to attribute everything to malice — is a modern combustion engine also irreparable because of some conteo, or is it irreparable simply because for efficiency reasons they had to use more precise technology with smaller error margins, where one’s fatty human hand just doesn’t cut anymore?
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.
I never claimed it was impossible. I'm only pointing out there are far more severe design constraints than a lot of people even understand, yet they confidently proclaim it is both a simple matter of trivial engineering and completely free of consequences.
The fact is gluing is simpler and cheaper but most importantly it reduces the repairability of phones by third parties. Quite often trying to repair a phone will cause it to be destroyed, making replacing a battery more risky and difficult. Companies would love not to have to use glue, but <design excuse>! Nothing at all to do with built-in obsolescence.
Honestly, it probably only adds a few bucks to the BOM and the consumer who doesn't care about repairability still likely comes out better off in the long run because their phone lasts them longer and/or resells for more because it isn't junk after 3 years.
With android phones the resale value/demand wasn't there (also due in part to bad software support lifetimes which would also need to be addressed) so they'd just get tossed/shelved after 2 to 3 years even if they were perfectly functional.
If you scaled the forces and subjected the car to the equivalent of dropping a phone on the floor it would be totaled instantly... forget about maintaining waterproofing.
Thus I stand by my original statement: people making claims like "just a gasket and some screws" have never designed a product under similar constraints and are making bad assumptions or straight-up Dunning-Kruger errors left and right.
I have this new Nokia phone with a replaceable battery. It came with the pin you can use to open it (probably costs a few cents to manufacture, but if I had plenty of time to spare, I could've made one with a sturdy piece of plastic and sandpaper). The "mechanism" that keeps the back panel is just a piece of rubber, probably the same kind you find on hermetically sealing food containers.
Also, very few people want their phones water-proof (what for?). And even if you really, really wanted that, you could like spend 5-10 Euro on a water-proof case.
This is insane. So that rain doesn’t destroy it? So that spilling a drink doesn’t destroy it? So that dropping it in the toilet doesn’t destroy it?
I'd take a removeable battery over almost every modern feature on phones today.
If rain destroys your phone that is just plain incompetence from the design department. Or rather, they were not incompetent, but other forces made sure they were not paying much attention to water resistance.
My wettest experience with a smartphone was when I got surprised by heavy rain when walking to the hair dresser. I arrived soaking wet. Got the phone (a HTC Desire Z) out of my pocket, water was running out of it. I opened the battery lid, the hairdresser blew with the hairdryer for a couple of minutes and all was fine.
Once my Google Nexus 4 died because of rain. Normal rain was no problem ever with it, even to make calls in a rain. But one day it rained very heavily with a wind so strong it was hard to walk against it. It felt like being in a carwash for ~ 10 minutes.
I was waterlogged up to my underwear. Nexus 4 was in my pocket and died. I put it to a bunch of rice and let it airdry. After it dried, the phone acted weirdly.
Lesson learnt: if the product doesn't specifically indicate a high level of water protection level, consider it not having ANY protection. "Resistant against spills" and other handwavy marketing mumbo jumbo has zero substance.
Yes, if you were stupid and went swimming with your wrist-watch you would've killed it... and every now and then I'd hear a story about how something like that happened.
Water-proof watches were seen as a luxury, however small, that nobody really needed outside of like scuba divers.
I don't even know if my phone is water proof or not, and I had it since 2016. I never tried swimming with it or leaving it outside in the rain or doing any of the other stupid things you listed... why would any sane person do something like that?
No, they don't. And those who do have to expose their phones to extreme conditions might buy a protective case. Very few people expose their phones to conditions they know to endanger electronics... it's common sense not to use electronics underwater, unless it's the special kind that's designed to do that.
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.
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.
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?
http://www.n2ltd.com/intermec-introduces-latest-rugged-mobil...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_5210
They can even fit into a pocket!
You really shouldn’t want to replace batteries on the fly in general — it makes stealing easier (modern phones can’t be powered off easily without authorization) so you may find it before it loses power, waterproofing suffers, etc.
Yet I don’t see manufacturers add better screen protection, quite the opposite in fact.
So phone cases/bumpers it is for me now.
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..
Yes, id didn't have newest 5G, but guess what - my new phone has it yet I don't have coverage. Storage could wear out but are you really doing load IO test on it? screen burnin/crack... maybe if someone is glued to the phone "24/7" and doesn't take care of the device... but as I said - using good policarbon materials (including for screen!) would get rid of this problem mostly...