The EU regulates that by 2027, all phones be equipped with replaceable batteries
twitter.com
twitter.com
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...
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.
I guess because from a user point of view it doesn't make much sense: by the time the battery is dead, the phone is so outdated it serves no use anymore.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).
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).
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That you think a 3 or 4 year old phone is outdated when the makers support it for up to twice that long is ludicrous, and even then it's silly to have to toss it because the maker won't provide further security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.
More like 3-4 for android vendors, with the exception of google, and it’s a new thing for them.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and...
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).
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...
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?
[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s5-smart...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 don't consider this a real world position. Literally no-one I know, thousands of people at minimum, has this issue.
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...
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/
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.
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 keep my iPhones for years, and the only thing showing the age is the battery.
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).
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.
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.
Water-resistant phones help a lot here.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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.
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.
goodness.
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.
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.
Now imagine if the seal is being held down by a plastic clip and can be primed open by the tiniest amount of force.
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.
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.
From https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...
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...
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
User replaceable batteries by 2027 is old news. The new news seems to be how Apple plans to accomplish it.
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.
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.
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.
Inevitably not glueing phones shut will lead to an increase in waste as other mechanisms will fail more often.
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'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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.