It's official: Smartphones will need to have replaceable batteries by 2027
androidauthority.com
androidauthority.com
Out of the 10+ phones in our family over the last 5-10 years, one was water damage and one was failure of the internal flash memory. Every other phone was replaced because the battery died. Every single one.
Official replacement was no longer available and DIY was either impossible (lack of parts) or eventually ended up damaging the device beyond economical repairability.
Regular people that don't have thousands of dollars in disposable income (and nothing useful to spend it on) haven't cared about phone specs for years. Hell, I love tech and could buy a new phone every year and even I haven't cared about phone specs since the original Google Pixel.
If you brick your phone every year because that's just who you are, no judging.
If you want a new phone every year and can afford one, its your money. Just remember that you are fortunate enough to be able to do so. And someone will surely buy your used phone and likely (try to) replace the battery in it.
Overall, it's like claiming that nobody drives cars that are 10+ years old because they needed a new clutch. Or that a 50 year old house needs to be torn down because fixing the roof economically is clearly beyond our engineering prowess. Are there people that swap cars every 5 years? Absolutely. But that does not mean those cars go to a scrapyard.
I will not comment on the technical aspects of this proposal, since the actual outcome might very well need to be settled in the court still. But dismissing the general point of legislature which demands better longevity for devices that basically everybody needs to partake in modern society is rather shortsighted.
Open bootloaders and drivers (after a certain number of years at least?) would help with that. Make available enough to let open source developers help themselves. Even if Google stops supporting Android on my hardware, or Apple stops supporting iOS, there should at least be a stripped down Linux?
I'm not sure how useful even that would be though, because that surely won't be able to run the latest apps used by society.
Sigh. Maybe everything is just an arms race. Phones won't stop going obsolete until it is physically impossible to make faster phones.
Since space bloat has been a bigger problem than time bloat, I could maybe have gotten more life out of my phones if the OS had supported the installation of apps to the SD card. Maybe that could be a cheap partial fix.
I am currently using a five-year-old iPhone Xs, and it seems to be just as fast as ever. The only issue I have with the device is decreasing battery life. If the battery was replaceable, I could easily use it for another 2–3 years at least.
That only gives you maybe 1.5 to 2 years of time before the battery is gone.
While we are on the topic on replacing things, it would be nice if we could change out the internal flash memory. I would keep my iphone for 5 to 7 years if I could change out both the battery and flash memory.
Most people would buy a new phone anyway, but these devices get obsoleted and turned into garbage, forcing people to both generate ewaste and buy things they don't really need.
Between eMMC and SD Express, there are at least two existing great options. I am not asking for doors, all this stuff can be internal by removing the back.
The issue when people discuss this, they get into weeds talking about how this or that mechanism isn't feasible, which is entirely orthogonal. You dictate the outcome, let engineers solve the problem.
A cycle is equivalent to a full discharge/charge. Using the phone to x% battery is roughly equivalent to x% of a cycle (it’s not a perfectly 1:1 relationship, but close enough).
Most people do not use a phone to 0% battery every single day. That’s equivalent to ~8 hours of screentime on a modern phone.
The average person uses their phone for about 3 hours a day [0]. Assuming that the vast majority of people's usage is within an hour of the average, 2-4 hours of daily phone usage would translate to 25-50% of a cycle, or 1000-2000 days of a usable battery, assuming a 500 cycle battery lifespan. (In reality it would be somewhat less, since as the battery degrades over time those 2-4 hours of usage would constitute more than 25-50% of a cycle.)
But this is a pretty cursory reading of those stats. If you actually dig into them, the majority of countries being surveyed are using their phones for more than 4 hours a day. The average person in the US uses their phone for 3 hours and 30 minutes.
A couple of takeaways:
- heavy smartphone usage inversely correlates with the wealth of the nation being talked about (this kind of intuitively makes sense, because countries like the Philippines are probably more likely to have people using their phone as their primary computer). Being able to use your phone a small amount of time each day has a small component of privilege to it, it probably means you have access to other computers.
- Even in the US, these are averages. There are people in the US who use their phones as their primary computer. There are people who travel a lot, or for whatever reason, end up using their phone more, and their batteries are very much going to be the first part of their phone that fails. The average usage in the US being 3.5 hours does not mean that the vast majority of people's usage is within an hour of the usage.
- Like you yourself said: "in reality it would be somewhat less, since as the battery degrades over time those 2-4 hours of usage would constitute more than 25-50% of a cycle." If we assume that heavy smartphone users in the US are using their phone for at least 4-4.5 hours a day (a very easy assumption if not conservative, since the average is already 3 and half hours) you're still going to be in a position where after about 2 years you're no longer going to get a full 8 hours out of a charge. Once you get to a point where a phone can't last a full 8 hour day on a single charge, you might start thinking about buying a new phone even if that's not your typical usage, because the first couple of times you forget to plug in your phone you'll stop trusting it to hold a charge.
GP is definitely wrong about how heavily people use their smartphones, but I suspect you're underestimating how heavily smartphones do get used and how big of an issue battery degrading is. I'd love to find more solid stats basically just asking people why they upgrade, but my experience matches GP's (minus the exact numbers). Battery lifespan and the cost of battery replacement is a huge component in smartphone churn. People buy new smartphones because their batteries die.
This would tend to reduce the number of overall days of usable battery.
Think video recording, video editing, or heavy video playback apps. These are huge drains on the battery.
- A phone that is used a lot in the car as GPS is often charged/discharged continuously, often for hours.
- Furthermore, this often happens in very hot or cold conditions which are bad for battery charging.
- A lot of people seem to live with the perpetual 5% of battery, or generally don't care about properly charging the device. This is also terrible for longevity.
- There are other reasons why you may want to constantly charge/discharge your phone (e.g. you are making Android apps, or it's the phone where people call your place of business, etc.).
So, just to make myself clear: I completely agree that on average, batteries should last for a long time. But in practice, people often have irregular activities which appear negligible on average ("it's just a few charge cycles"), but end up damaging the battery more than regular prolonged use. But again: I'd very much like more hard data on this :)
To a first approximation, anyone can buy a new phone every year. You can get an unsubsidized Android phone for less than $60.
Technically correct sometimes is not the best kind of correct.
Who do you think is buying the $70 phones in India, China, etc?
Do you think no one in India, China ever buy expensive phones?
Please educate yourself: https://www.bajajfinserv.in/insights/best-selling-phones-in-...
Churn on budget smartphones is even worse than on premium phones and battery life is even more likely to be an issue on those budget phones. It's good for the budget market as well if batteries are replaceable.
It would be great if people could buy an old secondhand iPhone and replace the batteries themselves for $30-40 bucks instead of buying a $60-70 garbage phone with who-knows-what spyware and out-of-date software every 1-2 years. That companies are able to put out this kind of garbage and people are buying them is (if anything) evidence that the secondhand/repair market on smartphones isn't nearly as strong as it should be.
Also, I really don't care about devices becoming thicker because that's a non-issue these days. They are too slim for their own good. My iPhone SE 2 bends in my pocket.
Basically it provides output signal to data cable so you don't need HDMI receiver for computer.
My nikon has replaceable batteries and the connectors are standard. as far as I knew, dslrs and even new mirrorless cameras all have user replaceable batteries
But of course the EU with it’s usual cluelessness won’t address that issue first
https://www.androidauthority.com/eu-smartphone-updates-rules...
The "web experience" was infinitely better before ads and tracking infested everything.
When was this mythical time the web wasn’t ad ridden? Do you not recall the pop up camera ads and the punch the monkey banner ads?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-f...
The x10 pop up windows were ubiquitous by 2001
Seems like ages ago. Webrings and link directories. Every page was hand-made by a passionate human, for other passionate humans, about subjects they cared about.
Now it's 99.99% ads, tracking, engagement, spam, link farms, generated garbage, outrage, and now AI nonsense.
There's so little to bookmark (i.e. care about) that browsers dropped support for bookmarks. Just think about that. No place worth remembering nor revisiting anymore.
That's bullshit. I have been in the room when tech teams have had a good hard look at their databases, and set expiry polices on old tracking data. Why? GDPR compliance. The knock-on effects in data leaks that never happened is large.
Characterising GDPR as merely bureaucracy and cookie banners is shallow and wrong.
I don't think that you know anything about the subject. Please do not repeat this nonsensical claim.
The thing is, if you're not a EU citizen or resident then the benefits are not for you, that's how legal jurisdiction works. So then, do you argue from meanness: it doesn't benefit me, so we should get rid if and the way that it benefit's others, or from inclusion: Why can't my legal jurisdiction have something similar?
You also have to ask yourself, if all you know is some reaction involving sites putting up cookie banners, from way outside; why you would consider yourself well informed enough to reach a conclusion that "that's all they did", and share it.
Very well, actually.
>All they did was made the web experience worse with cookie pop up banners.
That was not the GDPR. The GDPR does not talk about cookies anywhere.
It's the ePrivacy Directive (from 2002, amended in 2009) that deals with cookies (or any type of storage on an end user's device). It's the ePD that says if you set cookies and it's not strictly necessary to provide the service then you must get consent.
The only change the GDPR made in this area was tightening up the definition of "consent" to actually mean consent and not merely lack of disapproval.
"No it doesn't. This is appleinsider, and obviously they think everything is about Apple.
But if you read the proposal, it never mentions smartphones. It is fairly clear that this aims to target other types of electronics such as hand tools.
I'm pretty sure EU is satisfied with at cost smartphone battery replacement policy they introduced while back. The whole point is to not scrap electronics just because the battery is old, not that average Joe should be able to do it himself for the cost of making phones more expensive to produce or lose IP ratings."
This is an ewaste prevention policy not a "right to repair". Right to repair comes next, we just want any sort of repair to be considered for these electronics.
> The regulation provides that by 2027 portable batteries incorporated into appliances should be removable and replaceable by the end-user
And from the proposal[2]
> This Regulation should apply to all categories of batteries placed on the market or put into service within the Union, regardless of whether they were produced in the Union or imported. It should apply regardless of whether a battery is incorporated into appliances, light means of transport or other vehicles or otherwise added to products or whether a battery is placed on the market or put into service within the Union on its own.
What makes you think smartphone batteries are excluded?
[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...
[2] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
Smartphone battery issue was addressed separately and the whole spin on user replacable smartphone battery seems to come from forums like this and not EU. In fact, this proposal specifically allows water proof devices to be handled by a professional (an "independent" professional to be exact, which is very much inline with the previous proposal on smartphone battery replacement).
> new regulatory framework for batteries will consider rules on recycled content and measures to improve the collection and recycling rates of all batteries
> It is necessary to create a harmonised regulatory framework for dealing with the entire life cycle of batteries that are placed on the market in the Union.
> It is also necessary to update Union law on the management of waste batteries and to take measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste,
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
"Products placed on the market [...] in applications that the end-user is not intended to split up or open [...] should be subject to requirements applicable to batteries."
This sounds to me like as long as they have a recycling program for cellphones, the entire phone can be considered the "battery" and no user replaceablilty is necessary.
>Products placed on the market as battery packs, which are batteries or groups of cells that are connected or encapsulated within an outer casing to form a complete unit ready for use by end-users or in applications that the end-user is not intended to split up or open and which conform to the definition of batteries, or battery cells that conform to the definition of batteries, should be subject to requirements applicable to batteries.
I don't think phones can be considered being placed on the market as battery packs
>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
This is an ewaste policy, look at the objectives. Collection of waste, recovery of lithium, new batteries need to be made from recycled batteries.
Home replacement of batteries won't accomplish any of those goals. I would say that it would encourage more batteries to go in the bin. Apple and Samsung already provide fairly cheap services to replace those batteries and once removed the batteries can be recycled, this is going to impact other phone providers who don't offer anything, EV manufacturers who don't recycle or provide simple replacement programs, electric bikes that have batteries built into the frame so cant be replaced at all.
Compared to all that Apple is a fairly good citizen.
Of course they may not be supported by software in the case of phones and tablets, but (a) that's a separate issue and (b) not all tech with non-replaceable batteries are phones and tablets. It's an increasingly common pattern in wireless headphones, powered toothbrushes, hair clippers, etc.
Phones are a bit annoying, but they can have their batteries replaced. There are much lower hanging fruit, such as all the phones that can't have the batteries replaced at all, or the toothbrushes, etc.
But EU mandates that toothbrushes need to have replaceable batteries isn't click-bate enough compared to Apple conspiracies.
Never mind phones, what about EVs or cars in general? Currently to replace a Tesla battery you need to lift the car, undo a 30 bolts, use another lift or do some lift juggling to drop the battery, etc. How on earth do you design an EV with the same battery capacity if the battery must be removable without tools or expertise? Hell, my petrol ford fiesta has a battery which fails this requirement (needs spanners to undo the connectors and the hold-down and needs the expertise of knowing which batteries are appropriate, how to safely disconnect it, how to remove it).
It's specifically to prevent Tesla from saying "well, you need to have Tesla-bolt driver, the only way to remove our 30-bolts. And we only sell those to authorized Tesla-trained mechanics who took our course because if you mess up a secret process it won't work".
Tesla have transitioned their auxiliary batteries from lead acid to lithium. Their OEM battery is 6.9 Ah, because memes.
From the article: "This new law states, specifically, that users should be able to replace a battery in their phone without any special expertise or tools."
Wouldn't that mean that Average Joe should be able to do it? I would assume that I'd be able to buy a battery and replace it at home instead of shipping it off to some factory and being without a phone - or not actually have to take it to the nearest shop if I don't want to be without a phone for a while.
And from what I can find about Apple's battery replacement: They'll only do it IF you have apple care AND your battery has 80% capacity and your phone doesn't have issues such as a cracked screen. [1] This certainly doesn't sound like an easily replaceable battery.
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-ie/iphone/repair/battery-replac...
Spending €100 to fix a €399 Poco sounds like a very bad deal. I hope prices on budget- midrange Android phones don't go up with these new regulations.
You can buy a €400 used iPhone and get updates for longer than most brand new Android phones. And by the time that used iPhone stops getting updates, you'll still be able to sell it for some non-zero value, while that budget phone will be worthless and destined to be e-waste.
Comparing LineageOS to actual first party support when the SoC manufacturer has long forgotten your device exists isn't really realistic: you're getting updates in name only. The blobs that run the most important things are frozen in time.
-
Not to mention, if you're willing to put up with that level of limitation, you can get a brand new iPhone SE for $150 too. It'll be locked to a carrier, but that's a lot less limiting than "literally never going to have a meaningful update again"
If I'm running an outdated Android version, my threat model basically can't include any internet or cell connectivity, since an outdated media parser means a bad web page or media message and my phone is the attacker's playground. But an outdated baseband firmware means what, I have to watch out for ne'er-do-wells dodging the FCC with high powered SDRs in my neighborhood who know what model of phone I'm using? In a better world, Lineage could feasibly ship updates for every component, but as far as I can see, one of these is a lot more important than the other, and it's the one LineageOS does take care of.
VPU: https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2021-0346/
DSP: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/cve-2022-27834
The SoC has a lot more binary blobs than a baseband firmware. It's one thing if the alternative was living like a hermit, but no, the alternative is not supporting an ecosystem predicated on SoC vendors abandoning your advice because it's in their best interest for you to buy a new one.
Android for personal use is a complete non-starter for me today, it's a terrible ecosystem driven on waste with fundamental flaws that will never get fixed because of a misalignment of interests.
Even if you arbitrarily decide only RCEs matter, there's again a lot of binary blobs in a modern device and more importantly they do a lot more than you seem to think.
I'm not sure why Stagefright is your synecdoche for RCE when just a few months ago we got a set of CVEs that made it look like child's play. It turns out your device being exploited via baseband doesn't take SDRs, your baseband today is involved in MMS too:
https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2023/03/multiple-inte...
>they do a lot more than you seem to think.
I do mobile security research, I am well aware of what these devices do. The reason I cite stagefright vulnerabilities as an example is because stagefright is a library that has continued to have vulnerabilities well past the original set you're probably thinking I'm referring to, and vulnerabilities that we have seen exploited in practice. Are there any known worms exploiting the project zero bug you've linked? Because at least from what I've come across, an updated LineageOS install only running apps from F-Droid would not be vulnerable to any non-targeted attack in the wild I've heard of. (Not a rhetorical question, to be clear, it's entirely possible I missed something, and I would love to know more if my understanding it out of date.)
Edit: oh, it's that they might not get it off and back on in one (or rather as few as it was) piece(s) I suppose.
Personally, I suggest they adopt the ryobi battery as the standard.
I say this as someone heavily in the Makita system.
Of course an iPhone with a replaceable battery can be made while still being waterproof, but that would lose a lot of real estate.
That's a popular claim, but is "this phone has 0.1mm more depth than the other one" seriously a sales argument?
Also, this regulation affects everybody, so it still keeps the playing field even.
mildly overpriced batteries of varying reliability will be ubiquitous. you will be able to get rid of that warning message with a stop at a gas station, or perhaps…
a low monthly fee.
perhaps rather like toothbrush head, you could get a new one periodically. on subscription. just throw the old one in the trash, and it will magically disappear to somewhere else.
Charging is essential and had to be standardized. Fast charging is a bonus.
The interesting bits of the spec use extra pins from Type-C, so for the most part it's Type-C's charging norm.
After three years, my phone is out of support, with battery health at 90%. Considering my phone is out of support starting this year, this is neither expensive, nor planned obsolescence.
I'll save and buy another iPhone (the latest and greatest) in a couple of years, and will use that one for a decade, too.
How this is gouging the customer?
I support replaceable batteries, that will be great, but current practice is not to make batteries so expensive that people prefer newer phones, on the contrary.
It's a compromise between safety, performance and durability. Replaceable batteries might be more difficult to use and have their performance reduced for safety.
Although it doesn't warrant planned obsolescence, of course, but those security/performance things might be another excuse to reduce consumer choices.
Being removable does not resolve everything. For example, it's very common for laptop removables, especially from a certain ex-IBM division company, to have a self-destructive fuse in case the voltage drops as you replace the cells (making it all the more difficult and unsafe) because there's no original ones sold anywhere, and your alternatives are shady housefires from China that have the lowest quality ones in them no matter how much you pay, and it's very annoying.
That doesn't completely solve the problem, but it's not a glaring loophole any more.
Batteries must be "available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users"
And there's a ban on software-locking too: "Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components."
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
There are exceptions:
> By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following products incorporating portable batteries may be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals: (a) appliances 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; (b) professional medical imaging and radiotherapy devices, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices, as defined in Article 2, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/746.
Does a smartphone qualify under the section (a) exemption? What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water.
> The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.
Another potential loophole?
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
EDIT - It appears that page 11 & 12 make it clear that any battery in a smartphone is a "portable battery"
So would this apply to something like the Nintendo Switch, and/or Steam Deck?
Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.
Generally the law always does, but nerds love to think that they can find bounds checking violations in the law. In reality some administrative law judge or similar will not actually be impressed.
Recently I read that in France (where I live) there is this rule that all online sellers selling to customers must pay VAT even if abroad.
Someone pulled a trick along the lines of: taking orders from customers then ordering stuff on behalf of the customer, then claim "we don't sell stuff, we just order things on behalf of the customer", and then the other seller is not ordered from by the customer so by the book they are also not concerned by VAT (so in the end no VAT is paid)
And it seems it was confirmed being legal...
The regulators move slowly so it looks like it works for awhile, but someone winds up going bankrupt or to jail eventually.
The point is that, it's technically the end customer who pays the VAT. The seller collects it, on behalf of the state.
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2023/07/11/des-...
They call the intermediate "dropshippers" (even in the French text)
IANAL, but the linked EU directive doesn't seem to say that the seller has to charge VAT at the moment of sale, only that VAT is due, even in the case of an intermediary.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
I've just done a quick check on the site of B&H, an US-based reputable electronics store. If you try to send something somewhat expensive to France, they have the option of handling import duties and taxes or to handle it yourself.
And even if the judge ultimately decides against the manufacturer, it will take willingness to enforce the regulation for that to happen, during which the manufacturer can take cover under the "loophole".
Like you said the courts are just not fast enough
"portable battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 5 kg or less, is not designed specifically for industrial use and is neither an electric vehicle battery, an LMT battery, nor an SLI battery;"
What's an LMT or SLI battery? Well:
"light means of transport battery’ or ‘LMT battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 25 kg or less and is specifically designed to provide electric power for the traction of wheeled vehicles that can be powered by an electric motor alone or by a combination of motor and human power, including type-approved vehicles of category L within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1, and that is not an electric vehicle battery;"
and
"‘starting, lighting and ignition battery’ or ‘SLI battery’ means a battery that is specifically designed to supply electric power for starting, lighting, or ignition and that can also be used for auxiliary or backup purposes in vehicles, other means of transport or machinery;"
Semi-related: If they somehow use that loophole then they should be obliged to honour warranty claims for water damage.
I'll admit that I don't know about iPhones, but my Pixel 6 was described as being waterproof but experienced water damage after being dropped in a swimming pool (1 metre depth) for a few seconds and Google refused to repair it under warranty.
How do you know that? There is no iPhone from Apple with an USB-C port. You are just speculating based on some rumors.
Also being different would make it would be incompatible with current Macbook and iPad owner's chargers.
My (<2 yr old) series 6 watch now has water damage to the face and digitizer, after doing a swimming workout. It's nominally 50m water resistant, and I went a max of 1.5m. It's had a handful of water experiences, but nothing deeper than a pool and no high speed/pressure type stuff.
It's effectively dead.
Apple wants 359 eur to repair it. The new cost, with charger (39eur) and the braided sport band (100eur) ((which was nice, but stretched and became useless) was 509 eur. So there's effectively a 10 eur difference between the original sale price and the repair price.
There are refurb series 6 gps + cell on the amazon.de for 299 eur, and those include a strap and charger, as well as the cell functionality that I didn't have.
This is within the EU (and Ireland) 2 year limit on defective products, and I originally bought this from Apple directly. So I might have a claim there. On the other hand, I don't want them deleting my apple account in retaliation.
This is by far the biggest crime being committed here.
That they have you by the balls for access to essential services as well as your data needed to make the hardware purchase complete.
If they don't want to do the account hosting for some of their customers (because they don't like them for some reason) then they should offer an option to self host alongside a heavily discounted device which is compatible with self hosting. If you've already bought a device and they remove access to services they should be legally obligated to refund the difference. Otherwise they should make the services an explicit part of the purchase contract and be legally obliged to continue providing them.
Part of the apple tax is precisely to cover costs of maintaining the whole integrated ecosystem.
Nobody should feel the need to keep silent over a hardware issue because they may be cut off from essential software and services required to make good use of the hardware.
This is one of the core reasons for why I refuse to buy devices which are forcibly integrated into an ecosystem like this. But anyone who so chooses should not be fucked over by their choice at the whim of a large company.
Quoted depths are usually for Static Pressure, when the item is not moving against the water.
My Citizen wrist watch is marked as WR 100, i.e. 100m Static Pressure. That can be used for swimming, and I regularly do so. It is now around 25 years old.
A watch marked as water resistant to 50m is only really splash proof, or can be rinsed under a running tap. So it is safe to keep on while washing your hands.
One of my dive computers, intended to be used to around 40m, happens to be marked on the back as water resistant to 80m - but the casing is generally much more robust than in a watch.
50m is approx 5 atm of pressure — essentially waterproof unless you’re doing serious diving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark#Water_res...
> Another potential loophole?
Safety of user is not a concern for cell phone. Because it is possible to make a cell phone where a battery can be swapped a "safety of the appliance" would not apply.
The "collect and supply data as their main function" is intended as a carve out for devices like credit card readers, some of which have anti-tamper circuits will wipe critical data from the device if opened. These work by storing the data in SRAM, and using a battery backup for it (so that a power outage or unplugging it won't wipe it). They have contacts that detect if the case is opened, and that trigger wiping the data.
This was especially important for older mag-stripe readers where one could hypothetically install a skimmer inside the main reader if it continued to work after opening it. Hence, while they can often be disassembled with just commercially available tools, a normal user replacing the battery is not possible, as the factory needs to reprogram it afterwards, and they will insist on inspecting the unit for tampering before they do so. Requiring reprogramming by the manufacturer after battery replacement does not qualify as a replaceable battery under this regulation, so these devices need a carveout.
I think in vivo devices would fall under 2017/745 medical devices.
The article is wrong. The rule is that obscure tools must not be required:
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools [...]
> 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.
Also answers the above question regarding "specialised" - that would be anything not fitting the "commercially available" definition.
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
1. tools must be commercially available. 2. Tools must not be specialized, unless provided free of charge. (Reminder, part of the idea that the idea is that throwing away batteries is gradually getting outlawed, so end users need to be able to extract the battery before they throw away/recycle/or provide to eWaste facilities the rest of the device.). 3. Tools must not be proprietary. 4. Use of thermal energy cannot be required. 5. Use of solvents cannot be required.
And finally a clarification about the definition of commercially available.
Number 2 seems like it is independent of commercially available. Otherwise the "free of charge" part would make no sense. Furthermore, replacement is actually a secondary motivation of this law. A slightly more primary motivation is to ensure users can remove the batteries before throwing away the device or handing the rest to an eWaste facicity as applicable. I'd assume anything that the average consumer cannot expect to find at a local tool shop would be considered specialized.
Anything else like use of knives should be considered special if slots are not designated for them.
Looking at the ifixit guide for iphone 6s[1], it doesn't look like you need any special tools (as defined by the regulation). Sure, they're not exactly tools that a typical person has in their toolbox, but they're all "commercially available". ifixit even offers them for sale in their guide.
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPhone+6+Battery+Replacement/29...
No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add.
There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult.
> No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add.
Seems like it's all about tradeoffs. They're trading whatever hypothetical advances you're referring to here for less tech waste and lower consumer costs. They're deciding that it's an area in which manufacturers aren't allowed to innovate, because the innovations are trivial compared to the externalities that they impose.
You don't because that's not actually what most consumers want, and thus the misguided need to regulate it.
- Consumers optimize for what looks nicest in the store, and it's easy for the store to bury the nonreplacability of the battery under a thick layer of tech mumbojumbo.
- Most consumers (at least here in Germany) get their phones from their phone plans, so they are limited by what the phone companies offer with their contracts.
You could turn the argument around: clearly consumers do want this tradeoff, because they have decided to vote in governments to legislate for it to be a requirement.
If you think that's an overly simplistic argument, then I invite you to re-evaluate yours.
Looking at the iPhone 14 iFixit kit, the tools are not particularly exotic... pentalobe/tripoint screwdrivers (kinda mandatory for super small screws) and just a bunch of things needed to work with small devices, spudger, tweezers, suction cup, clamp. Stuff that for the most part has been part of fixit kits going back many generations.
A generic toolkit for working w/ most Apple devices shouldn't have a particular high number of parts.
I've stripped a handful of smaller torx heads due to worn bits over the years. Can't recall ever stripping a pentalobe.
I won't argue Apple came up with a new design for security purposes, at least initially. But that doesn't mean they didn't come up with a superior design for tiny bits at the same time.
Samsung Galaxy S5 had:
- easy user removable/swapable battery 2800mah
- external port for microSDXC
- audiojack
- was still IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min)
- 5.1 inches AMOLED screen
- just 145g weight
- just 8.1 mm thickness
- this was already mass produced in 2014
But that nomenclature is void if you ask me. I got water on the upper front part of my iPhone XS which is IP whatever and Face ID died. Apple said they wouldn't give me a new one because water resistant doesn't mean they have to replace your phone when something happens.
They didn't do this for water proof iPhones - that were lame excuses. They removed e.g. the headphone jack early to increase incentives to adopot (the then future) Airpods.
This was an outright lie; some Android manufacturers (I believe it was Samsung and Sony, but maybe others as well) had waterproof phones with headphone jacks and it didn't seem to negatively affect the phone in other ways.
Also, I can't figure out how there could be more than one way to replace the battery. It's incredibly simple.
Samsung even had a warning display on the phone when you turned it on to make sure the battery was secure.
The cost to replace it is not worth it to me, and DIY seems needlessly complex. For now I'll just carry a charger/powerbank - but I'd far rather swap out the battery.
Years ago I had a Dell Streak which I loved - that battery was swappable for that, I'd carry a couple of spare batteries in my bag for it - so I could do 2 or 3 days heavy use, without the need to recharge (the batteries were smaller and lighter than carrying a charger and the weird proprietary cable).
Replacing the battery risks breaking the display, since it requires removing the latter which is really thin on this phone.
Isn’t that the ultimate “other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?”
And I'd have my battery replaced for a while now, if it wasn't a bit difficult.
Does it still get upgrades to newer Android versions? Personally the reason I need to get a new phone is usually that the OS no longer receives upgrades (which means that apps drop support for it) or even security patches.
The phone had already been out for a year when I got it, so pretty impressed.
Now that's a device I haven't thought of in a long time! Always wanted one.
There's zero benefit to society to import any disposable vape variant, so the ban is pretty well received.
(circa 2019) Why has India banned e-cigarettes? https://www.thehindu.com/news/why-has-india-banned-e-cigaret...
Worth sharing and the reasons are justified atleast for me...
> However, that doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme of things. Companies like Samsung, Google, Apple, etc., don’t design devices specific to Europe. Apple, for example, is not going to create a European iPhone with a replaceable battery and one for the United States without. In other words, this law will change all iPhones. It will also change all tablets, laptops, EVs, e-bikes, and anything else with a rechargeable battery.
IMO, this is not necessarily true.
Apple gave in over USB-C/lightning in large part because it's the right thing to do[1], but IMO, many consumers strongly prefer a thin phone over a replaceable battery.
I suspect that Apple will at least strongly consider making a European version of the iPhone and a version that is thinner and/or has better battery capacity.
I'd be happy if Apple does move their entire line to replaceable batteries - I'd prefer to be able to do a battery swap myself. But I don't think most consumers share my preferences.
---
1. I don't mean this in any sort of moral sense. Just in a technological one. Lightning is firewire reborn. It may have been compelling at one time, but the world has passed it up. And much like firewire, Apple would have eventually dropped it; which means that being forced to give it up a bit earlier than they'd like it's a particularly big blow.
Is this really the case? Is there any kind of research on that? Anecdotally: I have never seen anyone having an iPhone without a cover case. The case makes the phone _bulky_ yet no one complains.
A thin phone with a phone cover is thinner than a bulky phone with a phone cover. Maybe the fact you're going to be putting a cover on it is why you want it to be thin in the first place.
Then I got an iPhone 6, and at some point dropped it & cracked the screen. Replaced the screen, and eventually cracked it again. Got an iPhone 8 and eventually cracked the screen. When I wanted to buy an iPhone X, my wife said, "Only if you get a case", and I didn't really have a good counter-argument.
Which makes it kind of an irony: if you push too far in some direction, you end up going way back. Jony Ive pushed for the iPhone 6 form factor: thinner, rounder. Which made it prettier without a case; but by sacrificing too much sturdiness, it meant everyone needed to have a case -- so the iPhone form factor became "a very pretty, fragile phone in a bulky case" rather than "a nice-looking moderately robust phone without a case".
Put me in the camp of wanting thinner phones. I don't use a case. My 14 Pro is thicker than I like. I miss the thinness of the 6s. I end every day at 40% battery life; the extra capacity is wasted on me, since it's not good enough to last two days. My last phone was 5 years old, still had 81% capacity when I replaced it, and always lasted the full day.
Am I everyone? Obviously not, but I expect market research has led Apple and others to the conclusion people do want thin phones, else they would make thicker phones.
I guarantee there will be people upset that their phones are thicker for reasons that don't benefit them.
Maybe those batteries will be bulkier or something but I don’t think people care about better battery that much with current performance.
A thick phone with a cover is even bulkier, you know.
Having it optional for people who want it, trading off design and durability? Sure.
I'm perfectly happy with the iPhone's battery life, never intend to (nor wanted to) change the battery, and use it around or even under sea/pool. This "improvement" would either change the IP rating or lose a lot of inner space to keep the waterproof rating while still supporting battery changing.
Why would I, as a user, want a totally backwards rule for something I'm never planning to do in my entire life? If someone wants that functionality, they can get a cheap Android phone with swappable battery and 100 spare batteries. Making such a thing mandatory is beyond ridiculous.
But then it doesn't exist, right? Like today, which phones do have replaceable batteries? So the free market doesn't work and the government needs to step in. Blame the manufacturers (or the customers if you want).
The demand simply isn't there for replaceable batteries. I know there's a loud minority on HN and other tech focused sites, but it's simply not something most people care about. How well did extra batteries sell when they were common?
Considering how phones have pleateaued, I bet you'd get a lot more buy in if you frame it like that.
This is about avoiding electronic waste, not being able to plop out a battery every day. People may not care about that, but some people don't care about pollution in general.
But the EU thinks society will benefit from less electronic waste and more durable devices. Or at least EUropean society, which AFAIK leans towards importing smartphones rather than making or design them. And this is far from the first time governments enforce features on products that the market doesn't seem to be demanding.
But is the EU thinking of something about enforcing longer software updates timelines? I suspect this law won't be so effective without it.
oh the utter ignorance of iFanboys...
If you want to argue there will be less smartphones -> less waste that seems reasonable. Some person on a tight budget drops it in water and it fizzles because water gets in the the battery maybe. Can't afford to replace it. They learn to live without a phone.
But it isn't going to cause less waste with the same utility. The market is much better than the EU at sniffing out the maximum benefit for minimum resources. Less waste is almost always moire profitable.
…something something 3M …something something oil industry …something something tobacco industry, pesticides, fast fashion, disposable products, and factory pollution
If enough food to make it to the end of the year is on the list of non-essential items then yeah I suppose there is a lot of waste out there.
> factory pollution
Where does the stuff some from without factories? Are you proposing a world where people do without whitegoods? Nobody knows how to run a factory that makes affordable goods in bulk with little pollution. The market is optimising for the most people being able to afford to live comfortably. The equilibrium that minimises waste at all costs is a world with no humans.
So fast fashion but you can't even patch your pants if they have a hole.
> factory pollution
If companies had to pay for the pollution they produce they would have to raise prices and/or find a way to produce the same while polluting less. Enforcement in a globalized world is the issue.
I hate that dumbass argument. Every fucking time someone brings it.
Nobody fucking buys thing like a smartphone or a car based on a single feature while ignoring every other feature.
You buy a thing. There is like half a dozen to a dozen different factors. Battery life, screen size, CPU, RAM, storage etc.
If there is no phone with the "niche" option like replaceable battery that ALSO have all of the other features in acceptable range, people will not buy it.
It's NOT because they don't want <niche feature>
It's because picking <niche feature> means bigger compromises in other areas that are also important
I think they actually will do just that. Look at the Wikipedia page for any iPhone and you’ll see that each model has multiple regional SKUs. China has a SIM card tray while the US doesn’t.
I think smartphone makers will make the battery rectangular and put it in a convenient spot and then make a different rear case part just for Europe.
The rest of the world phones will have perhaps the exact same “removable” battery but it will be behind a case that has no door.
They did just fine with replaceable batteries.
But I also question your premise, I don't think it's as clear. I've never dropped my phone in a sink, but had battery issues with basically every phone. Often the battery starts failing much earlier than 80% in two years.
To me it looks like water proofing is being used as an excuse to add built-in obsolescence to products, since I imagine that conformal coating would do the job better. What am I missing?
The falloff has to be way more than 20% for two years?
Keeping it within 20-80% most of the time might keep the battery healthier.
The main faucet to your house sits under 60psi water pressure all day, and the moving parts are removable. This is 100 year old technology.
They are still rectangular. I actually thought they are more irregular, trying to use the available space more efficiently, but e.g. Samsung S23 Ultra battery looks like a normal rectangle.
Their casing is much thinner, though, since they don't have to assume rougher handling by an end consumer.
I wonder if perhaps there will be two batteries of the same shape - the non-replaceable will have a thinner casing, but with a somewhat higher capacity.
Regardless of whether or not you think that's an important thing to design for, these smartphone designers' product orgs. do.
So realistically, given Europe is <10% of the global population (and an increasingly small share of Wealth/GDP), this will just result in EU SKUs that don't get updated very often and are thicker.
Will be interesting to see if this just causes a grey market in less eco-conscious markets, while other places that conform just get known for having bulky phones (a la Japan and faxes).
Plus, if I understood it properly, India is contemplating a similar law.
Europe is around 45% smaller than US revenue for Apple (and about 25% of overall revenue) and has lost share every year since at least 2018. [0]
The US and Europe see similar volume sales (both way less than Asia).[1]
It's just simply not true that Europe is by any means the largest smartphone market at any segment.
[0]https://www.bamsec.com/filing/32019322000108?cik=320193 [1]https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/global-smartphone-market-20...
Knowing that almost all of Apple's phones are >$800, the fact that 41% of all sales in the EU were >$800 implies that Android isn't some hidden variable here.
I'd also like to point out that unit shipments have been in decline (on a y/y basis) for 10 the last 13 quarters. [0]
[0] https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/europe-smartphone-market-q1...
The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36466153 - June 2023 (328 comments)
EU: Smartphones Must Have User-Replaceable Batteries by 2027 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36394922 - June 2023 (13 comments)
European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36361510 - June 2023 (606 comments)
EU parliament passes law on user replaceable batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36336190 - June 2023 (18 comments)
Non-replaceable battery? Not if this proposed EU law passes - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34129250 - Dec 2022 (234 comments)
EU legislation could bring back user replaceable batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34085963 - Dec 2022 (23 comments)
Replaceable batteries are coming back to phones if the EU gets its way - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30867892 - March 2022 (14 comments)
EU to make it mandatory to use customer-replaceable batteries in household items - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30660953 - March 2022 (637 comments)
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
> The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.
2024 will be the year that Apple stops selling the iPhone and releases the all new iBattery. It's a special battery that's also a revolutionary communications device!
https://www.ifixit.com/News/35377/which-wireless-earbuds-are...
With fines on the line they better get creative.
Yes, in $1 worth of screws.
> Besides I can't even imagine an iPhone that can be easily opened by anyone, stay water resistant and "Apple-y" at the same time...
Trying to do water-proofness without whole "slather it in glue" would probably add tiny bit of thickness to the thing as you'd need to have some oiled seals across the edge.
And considering some phones already need a case just so I can hold one comfortably I'm not complaining about thicker edge coming back..
Hmm. I wish this were worded a bit differently, in that I wouldn't mind having a screwed in compartment if the phone came with a tool that could be used to open the battery compartment. Being able to replace by hand excludes even operations like the sim tray's mechanism. EDIT: This is actually the case. I was quibbling over nothing
I think the rest of the regulation to require recycling seems a good move on the surface.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
It's actually going to make things much worse in my opinion.
I wouldn't think too much cost, since targeting 2027 means it should only affect phones that aren't even designed yet? (At least, I don't think anyone is taking 3-4 years to get a phone to market)
I'd rather have a battery that lasts the full lifespan of the device, than a easy to replace battery.
When you get into the rugged territory, there is diving equipment with removable batteries, so it is absolutely not a limitation.
* this turns out a lot less exiting than people want it to be
* a lot of companies are just going to leave the EU market
I don’t think Apple is going to produce a Fairphone, and combined with the charger meddling and the App Store meddling I expect them to draw a line in the sand sooner or later.
And then we will just all import them from the UK, just like before the iPhone was even sold in mainland Europe.
Also, comparing this to 2007, when basically no-one had a smartphone, to now where every one and their dog have a smartphone in their pocket doesn't make a lot of sense.
But Apple can definitely afford to drop that market, they make their own rules and everyone that invests in them knows it and has been reaping the rewards for decades. And if everyone imports the phones through the UK it’s not like they are completely dropping it anyway.
They’ve threatened to leave a market before, if conditions are such they can’t work:
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/07/12/apple-threatens-to-leav...
And threatening is one thing. Actually doing it is another.
And in regards to your link: as much as some of the UK would like to believe otherwise, the EU is a significantly more massive market.
If Apple shareholder calls worked like you think we would have all these things every know it all pundit has been demanding for a decade. But we don’t. Because shareholders know and trust that generally Apple does know better.
In reality however, Apple complies with a variety of government regulations already, around radio, power consumption, safety, and so on. This new battery regulation is just one more of those, and just like before, Apple will adhere to it. Why? Because Apple and the shareholders like making money a whole lot more than not making money.
We’ll see what the future brings.
In my experience, most smartphones, even without water-resistant ratings, do survive accidental spills or even drops. And for cases where it won't, splash resistance would suffice. Claim of water resistance is already kind of misleading, because it's only temporary and only applies to fresh water (river is not "fresh water" in this case). So it's more limited than what companies want you to believe, and people's habits haven't changed anyway. Unless you live in Japan, or you frequently expose your phone in non-fresh water (for which you would need a different kind of accessory anyway), there's practically no reason you should have a IP rated phone.
It doesn’t concern anyone that regulators in the EU who know nothing about tech are forcing companies to have worse designs?
The iPhone X seems to have aged a lot better than the iPhone 8, which it was released alongside, but it looks like Apple's decided to kill both off at the same time.
This leaves me with similar feelings to the incoming usb-c requirement for iPhone too. I love lightning. Its only weakness is where the head meets the cable but there’s plenty of aftermarket cables with strength in this area. USB-C heads are prone to damage and breaking.
If I’m lucky, I’ll have the foresight to wipe them before they completely die.
Is there any rule against "DRM" like vendor lockin for replacement batteries?
The reason I'm skeptical is because this is not happening in isolation from other related things happening in Europe. Consider how France is pushing for authorities to have unprecedented direct access to people's devices in this dystopian push:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/07/06/france-s...
This reminds me of when I visited France not long ago. At the airport they started opening my laptop to check it out. I never had that happen at any other airport before. They took it out in front of me and opened it up to look inside it. It was a bizarre experience because that held up the entire flight's departure for no reason. It was an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience. Their general tendency towards authoritarian dystopian types of ideas since then is palpable.
So all of this suggests to me they want to have easy access to consumer hardware for interdiction reasons. It'll be way easier for them to get into devices that are otherwise behind proprietary or less common enclosure mechanisms. It's strange how with the EU it's one step forward for protecting users (I like the spirit of GDPR for example) and then just a giant step backwards with these types of moves. Unless the EU adopts strict user privacy laws at the constitutional level, I don't see why this confluence of variables isn't suggesting an anti user mindset.
If someone with an expertise in these things can offer guidance on why interdiction doesn't work this way and what I'm missing about the risks here, I'd greatly appreciate it!
The push for user replaceable batteries has been ongoing for years now and is not related to whatever Macron's trying to do unilaterally in his own country, which is only one member state of the EU.
Airport authorities can certainly have the tools to open up computers especially, as you mention, because they have the power to delay people's flights. They certainly don't need to do that "without proprietary tools" or in a rush.
On that note, airport security simply opening a computer is usually not a way to hack it, it happens more likely if they want to double check for explosives or other hidden compartments they cannot see on X-Ray (because heavy metals turn black on X-Ray and you can't see what's on the other side).
If the authorities wanted to actually get the contents on your phone or computer, they can (in some places) simply take the phone or computer from you, ask you to give them the password or passcode and then give back the device when they're done cloning it. This has actually happened multiple times in the US (example: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/ill-never-bring-my-phone-o...).
Having access to the hardware without you knowing it only makes sense if the government had to rely on a secret hardware backdoor, but there are easier ways to track you via software, ISP data or simply by forcing you to hand over your device and revealing your password.
On the other hand, this battery replacement argument follows a long history of courts and regulatory authorities around the world slapping vendors for doing what they have been doing for the last decade or so: proprietary connectors, non-replaceable batteries, and so on.
It's not just a European thing. Last year, a Brazilian court fined Apple 19 million USD because they sell phones without chargers, especially given that Apple uses non-standard connectors.