EU rules for durable, energy-efficient and repairable smartphones and tablets
single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu
single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu
Just my two cents and a bit of reckoning: You guys know the types of batteries? Like AAA, etc? There are a whole list of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battery_sizes) and it's standardized, allowing different vendor to corporate with each other automatically.
But it comes to the smartphones and laptops etc, their batteries comes in with all shapes and forms, aka non-standarded.
I think if EU really wants to make electronic more durable, maybe try standardize the not-so-durable parts of the device. For example, battery, data drives, charger etc. This enables other vendors to create replacement parts without breaking copyright and other laws.
Also the battery in my previous phone was at 83% of its nominal capacity 5.5 years after purchase, so I think this part is already durable enough.
The way I'm cycling the battery in my current phone it could last 8 years before it reaches that level.
Still. The cells they do use are all going to be the same voltage since the chemistry is the same. In theory you could swap them out with a set of same size or smaller lithium cells.
Shipping OS updates to 5 years after the sale of last phone is going to make the phones work longer and lower the amount of stupid and fixable security issues present in all the outdated phones now in the wild. I hope.
It's absolutely crazy how we're basically forced to accept that mobile devices just expire when the OEM decides so. Unless you go into extreme lengths to build your own custom ROM, which might not even be properly doable (when the device becomes EOL).
And even then, while you get software updates on that custom ROM the firmware usually just isn't updated anymore so security is still an issue.
My iphone 12 mini is from 2020 and is fine, so 5 years. Next ios release still supports 2019 iphone 11s, dropping the 2018 era, so apple seems to give 7 years for a phone, which doesn't seem terrible for closed source software.
Also the process is prone to unexpected issues, bugs, etc.
I wonder how it will work in practice though, as often the quality of QA for system updates for old phones drops over time, and major bugs and perf regressions are being shipped.
The hard problem is not even necessarily building android, the hard problem is afaik the custom firmwares needing a very specific kernel version to work with and having security issues of their own.
If you then want to decouple software completly form any hardware chip it get's complicated fast, are usb ICs software?
Do all ic manufactures now need to hire external companies for their firmware?
Same goes with multiplayer game developers. If they wanna stop hosting servers, they should be required to release the server software in a manner that makes it possible for me to set it up for myself to keep playing the game.
Not just German ICE cars, but I follow what EV Clinic is doing and it's making my blood boil on how poorly designed against cheap and easy repairability EVs are.
Feels like this is the bigger environmental and societal issue than phones and tablets.
Cars are repairable, phones are not, this is why this regulation is coming about.
There are modules that need replacement in whole, but same is true for this regulation regarding to phones: display and touchscreen modules are replaced as whole, not per component. Not great, but not too shabby, given the only other choice was to toss it.
The bigger part is manufacturers have to provide OS support for 5 years after the last phone was sold.
You're right, car repairability is an even bigger issue than phones.
>Cars are repairable, phones are not
New cars are repairable only by the authorized dealer, with authorize parts and tools, and those parts are maliciously engineered as modules where for a 2$ defective connector the dealer will replace a 1000$ module and electrical harness because they don't sell the 2$ connector separately, they sell the whole thing as a module/kit. How is that not anti consumer and anti environment?
If my phone breaks and can't easily fix it, I can buy a new one for 200$, or keep my old one as a backup until I figure out something. Meanwhile if my car breaks, I can't buy a new car on a whim, and most people also can't afford to keep a backup car around.
This is a WAY bigger issues than non repairable phones. A defective car is a much bigger household expense than a broken smartphone.
You can change tires and oil without going to an authorized dealer for all the cars I know. You couldn't do the equivalent for some phones, like changing battery or screen.
> Cars are repairable, phones are not, this is why this regulation is coming about
Anything is repairable given enough resources. It's very obvious electronics are targeted but not cars as protection for local manufacturers biz models.
Cheap cars are not permitted any more in the EU. Lots and lots of non-essential electronics are required to satisfy European norms, and you putting your hands on your car is frowned upon.
The only failure I see is not enforcing the GDPR on auto vendors, and cars being surveillance machines with no way to opt-out ( https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/arti... ).
Edit: right to repair as well.
Safety features that are easier to defend (automatic emergency braking, driver fatigue detection, driver distraction warning systems, black boxes, tire pressure monitors, "intelligent speed assistance", oncoming vehicle detection) are also adding a whole heap of electronics to cars that drive up the base price of any vehicle. Then there were the inherent privacy risks when the EU wanted to introduce mandatory, automated SOS call functionality ("eCall") on crashes (because their mobile modems are basically tracking devices you're not allowed to remove) but the requirements were altered to keep the modem off under non-crash circumstances.
You can't rip out the touch screen of your car and replace it with physical buttons unless you also figure out how to make the reversing camera work. Modifications to the outside of your car may also be a challenge because you need to keep the lane assist system working or your car won't pass the mandatory safety inspections.
I'm in favour of most new safety systems, but EU regulations seem to be making some very strange choices in this regard that make it impossible for newcomers to have even a remote chance of coming to market. The rules are excluding a whole bunch of Chinese and Indian cars (on purpose), but also stifling competition from new EU manufacturers.
Sorry, the only thing I could find on the topic was that the vehicles manufactured after 2024 need to have a back-up camera when sold on the EU market, nothing about you actually ripping it out, can you please link?
That said, you, personally, may not need a back-up camera, but considering the general public, do you not think it would be a net-benefit? The general public includes inept/distracted drivers, and old people who don't see or can't turn around easily. I can easily see people being saved by appearing in the back-up camera of an inept driver while the vehicle flashes red lights and sounds alarms.
There is of course the lobbying angle to this -- more mandatory base features means auto vendors can safely drive up the base prices without fear of competition. The real question is is this going to lead to a net reduction of vehicle accidents?
- Making drinking and driving unacceptable.
- Better driver training.
- Mandating vehicle safety checks (MOT in the UK).
- Mandating speed limits with penalties.
Vehicle aids actually allow people concentrate less on the road.
I could believe it about the other things, but I really don't see how backup cameras fit in that list
Intelligent speed adaptation solutions are also very interesting, especially the closed type. I live in a country where the highway speed limit was raised from 110 to 130kph so that drivers going up to 180kph don't get their drivers license suspended and vehicle impounded and are just slapped with a fine. I kid you not.
Driving the speed limit is als frowned upon by many fellow drivers. It's so bad that the government has started to put physical barriers between the lines to prevent illegal overtaking on several high risk two-lane roads because so many people die due to head-on collisions that it starts to pose a problem with the public...
They seem outdated, even 20-30 year old cars are stable enough on the road to go 80-100km/h instead of 50. Germany has shown that driving as fast as the car can go is not the main cause for car accidents.
With some exceptions where I think they're doing something good, like dangerous curves, they are mostly used by police to make money for the city/government.
I can tell you that responsiveness is the last thing on my mind when I slog from one traffic light to the next, or generally when I drive the speed limit, and try to get from point A to point B. And I can tell you that my wife absolutely loves drive by wire when she needs to park in a tight spot -- I've had her (try) to park a car without electric power steering and with a carburetor...
My needs and the rest of society will be different. So posing every response through this filter is asinine.
Not everyone drives in a city with perfect well maintained roads in a city.
I drive on roads that of full of pot holes, has deep ditches on either side and frequently there maybe obstacles in the road (rocks, trees, animal). I drive under the speed limit normally as the roads can be dangerous.
Having a vehicle that is more responsive/lighter/better visibility is better than something that has bunch of driving aids which are largely useless in such circumstances.
> I've had her (try) to park a car without electric power steering and with a carburetor
Parking a vehicle isn't that difficult and you should have learned to do it properly by the time you take your test.
If you wife can't park a vehicle without driving aids than she shouldn't be driving that vehicle.
I'm pretty sure that the upheaval against any government that takes such a position is going to be a thing to behold, which is why the general approach in the EU has been working around shit drivers with technology to achieve net less deaths and emissions, while making walking, public transport, and biking more attractive. As opposed to making driving less accessible, so that only good drivers are left on the road, while no convenient alternatives exist for the rest.
Say what?
This is a complete strawman of what I was saying. I never said about a new driving test every 5 years or requiring you drive without power steering.
Though you should probably be able to park the vehicle without driving aids. These things do fail!
I am talking about things that have already been proven to be effective. These are things like public awareness campaigns, stiff penalties for drink driving and the like.
> I'm pretty sure that the upheaval against any government that takes such a position is going to be a thing to behold, which is why the general approach in the EU has been working around shit drivers with technology to achieve net less deaths and emissions, while making walking, public transport, and biking more attractive
The driving aids is frequently distraction and can actually be dangerous. I won't drive newer vehicles because there is no way I am driving a vehicle that can take control away from me whenever it feels like, for the simple reason I am still legally on the hook.
It is pure madness this is now some of this absolute shite is mandated by the EU to be in vehicles and one of the reasons why I've bought an older vehicle that I can fix myself and has none of this crap. BTW it is much easier to drive, mainly because visibility around the vehicle is better and there are zero distractions in the vehicle.
It disappointing that so many people have been conned to think this is about vehicle safety and emissions.
The reason there were so many Diesels in the mid-2000s is that the EU/UK government said they were better for emissions and were subsidised by lower taxes. Anyone who has ever looked at the back of a Diesel vehicle (it is covered in soot) would know this is BS.
The same will be found out about the newer vehicles. This guy is an American petrol head but in this video he does a really good job talking about the absolute waste with modern vehicles. When people like him and I are complaining about this waste, you know the amount of waste is staggering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7c2_JMxR0s
As for public transport, biking and walking. Take this as someone that used to cycle commute daily and is an avid cyclist and I walk/cycle for recreation. You will never make it more attractive, especially outside of a city where public transport is less reliable.
BTW Putting "your hands on your car" means doing basic repairs and maintenance e.g.
- I changed my oil on my car.
- I've bled my brakes.
- I fixed the H-strap as it was broken on my driver's side door.
- I replaced the wiper system myself. This BTW would have cost several thousand pound to be done by a specialist (you have to remove significant portions of the dashboard to do this.
- Replacing the rear shocks on my suspension.
A vehicle is the second most expensive purchase people make after a home and yet because you disagree with how a small minority of people modify their cars, you are fine with the concept of ownership being erased and your vehicle forever being beholden to the manufacturer. It is incredibly short sighted.
Modern cars currently are getting to a stage where they cannot be repaired by anyone except for the manufacturer. This will drive up prices of repairs (dealerships/specialists are already expensive as they are) and you won't be able to go to smaller shops to get your car serviced / repaired and these places will go out of business and jobs lost.
This is already causing huge amounts of waste because cars are being scrapped because they are uneconomical to repair after minor accidents, or minor faults. Compare this with 15/20 years ago and I had a car that did 300,000 miles before it became uneconomical to repair (I still got £500 from the scrap man). Repairing a vehicle is much less wasteful than replacing it.
Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers. I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it.
Still, I reiterate, one must have the complete power to do so as part of owning a vehicle, just not the privilege of using it on public roads afterwards.
You could have looked it up. It is a common expression.
> To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods.
They already kinda use standardised parts. Most manufacturers license parts from one another e.g. I have a Vauxhall, the chassis IIRC is the same as a Volvo. Super cars will have headlights from a Ford Focus.
My Land-rover Defender 4x4 uses the same parts are other British Leyland cars of the same period e.g. the wiper system is the same as one on a Rover from the 1980s, the engine mounts are the same as the ones used in a Rover P4 from 1953.
More modern cars and electric cars though need entire custom drive chains, electronic wiring, sensors and computer system that are not standard.
> Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers.
Making your car un-roadworthy is already illegal. That is why yearly safety inspections (MOT) are required in the UK for any car that has been on the road for more than 3 years. If your car has obvious emissions issues you will be pulled over by the police.
> I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it.
They already try to prevent it. Newer cars will detect this and may even refuse to start. It however like any restriction. It can be circumvented.
It is still the worst interpretation and that is generally considered to be disingenuous. Also most Americans don't use the term that way either.
https://openinverter.org/wiki/ZombieVerter_VCU https://openinverter.org/wiki/Legalities
To me this is typical political handwaving, aiming at surpeficial "solutions" that will get easy support (because "obviously" it makes sense, even if, really, not so much...) while not addressing the deep, more complex but more beneficial to solve, issues.
I don't believe that. I think the desire for a new phone is mostly triggered by some unhappiness with the current one. For example because the battery doesn't last a full day anymore, the screen is cracked, it doesn't get security updates anymore or performance feels sluggish (because new OS and apps are more demanding or wasteful).
If replacing the battery or screen is expensive, buying a new phone becomes more attractive, since you might also get a better camera, more performance, larger display or other benefits. On the other hand, if I can order a new battery for cheap and swap it out in five minutes, I might just do that and keep my old phone for a few years longer.
A battery replacement not covered by the warranty or Apple Care ranges from $70 for really old phones to $100-120 for the latest models (the high end is a range because it depends on whether you have the regular model or a pro or max).
That’s way cheaper than a new iPhone. It’s even cheaper if you use a third party repair place instead of Apple. Third party repair places are common even in small towns.
In my small town there is one inside the Walmart and one in a standalone shop, and in the small town around 8 miles away there are two in the mall and one or two standalone ones.
Recycling improvements would yield much more sustainable benefits but this is not as easy or PR-friendly as decreeing "just make then repairable" and then pat yourself on the back for saving the environment...
My SO's phone battery was busted after 3 years of use and replacing it would cost half of a new phone. Replacements battery itself is cheap, but amount of labor it takes to take apart current smartphones is just unreasonable.
It just made me personally very happy that I was able to repair such a minor problem in the grand scheme of things. It really was just "detach the plastic back from the adhesive, unscrew some (~13) screws, reattach the cable, put everything back together". While I'd still love if it weren't that difficult it was all-in-all a very easy fix compared to other things I've done.
And yes, while the back still somewhat sticks to the case, is somewhat loose. I probably should replace the adhesive but I use a case anyway so it isn't really a problem.
So, it doesn't HAVE to be difficult to disassemble a phone, unless incentivised to do so, it is another revenue stream for manufacturers if they make it so that only they can repair it (pairing components cryptographically, to which they only have the keys to... just give the owner the fucking keys and let them decide...)
Reuse
Recycle
In that order.
Recylcing is a last resort.
At one smartphone per human being over 10 years old, thinking that "reduce" and "reuse" (how?) will make a difference is completely unrealistic.
On the other hand, at the limit, with 100% recycling, whether you change every 2 years or 7 also makes little difference.
I really don't understand the push-back here. IMHO it really shows how wrapped by political ideology (degrowth, anti-consumption and ultimately anti-capitalism) this all is when the facts in terms of sustainability are clear: We must recycle very effectively and efficiently what we produce, otherwise in the long term we'll just marginally change the thickness of the waste the planet will end up covered with.
Regarding "degrowth", the one that we probably must go after to reduce our impact is population degrowth but strangely and illogically this is the one people don't want to hear about.
It's pretty much settled that it's far better to only make 1 device than 3, even if you were to recycle the 3 devices and not recycle the 1 device.
On the whole recycling is a con from companies who make a fortune by making more waste. Some recycling is far better than others, but reuse is orders of magnitude better.
In the past milk came in glass bottles, delivered, drank, and then reused. That's far better than recycling the bottles after just one use, although recycling glass is far better than plastic. But there's more money to be made selling you plastic in the supermarket several times a week, so that's what we have.
Same with electronics. Far better to reuse the electronics for multiple years than to get a new one each year. Same with clothing.
> I really don't understand the push-back here.
If you currently recycle 0% of a phone every 2 years, that throws 5 phones away every decade. If you recycle 0% of a phone every 6 years, that throws 1.7 phones every decade
If you currently recycle 30% of a phone every 2 years, that throws 3.5 phones away every decade. If you recycle 30% of a phone every 6 years, that throws 1.2 phones every decade
If you currently recycle 50% of a phone every 2 years, that throws 2.5 phones away every decade. If you recycle 50% of a phone every 6 years, that throws 0.8 phones every decade
To increase recycling levels to make it better to recycle, you'd have to go from 0% to 65% recycled, or from 30% to 75%.
As a consumer I don't want a new phone every 2 years, I don't have a new phone every 2 years. I've had 4 iphones in the last 15 years. I don't even pay for them - work gives them to me for free when I push a button. I don't want a new laptop every 2 years either, the laptop I'm typing on was new in 2017. I have a desktop that I rarely use, but that still does the exact same job it did in 2016 when it was new.
It's certainly neither settled not factual.
> Far better to reuse the electronics for multiple years than to get a new one each year. Same with clothing.
The point isn't whether it is 'better' or not. The point is that if you don't ultimately properly dispose of them through recycling you haven't solved anything. At best you've slowed the rate at which we're covering the planet in trash but obviously the end result will be the same: It will end up covered.
> Population is declining everywhere
Not yet and current level is unsustainable (as we're seeing) whether you do symbolic gestures like keeping your smartphone longer or not.
Major innovations (from the user pov) are happening mostly in software these days, not in hardware.
So I don't see how a little bit of regulation keeping hardware alive a little longer is political handwaving at all. It doesn't matter if any 'deep and complex issues' are not addressed, whatever they are, its still a valid improvement over the status quo, however small. Yes, mandating 5 years of security updates isn't going to solve climate change or fix the economy, but it would extend the safe lifetime of most mid range phone by around two years and for the vast majority of users, that will be just fine.
I know it is not that interesting to talk about small improvements, but a lot of politics is exactly about that: improving society with many thousands of very marginal steps. They are not a distraction, they are the work.
I'm not a conservative, but this kind of pragmatism is what I feel used to be the true value of old school conservative politics, and it is deeply lacking its current form. Conservatism needs to be boring again.
My friend has had her phone for 7 years and she's being pushed off it because apps are refusing to run on it now. No other reason than that.
Once that is done, it works fully as expected. I dread the day some new version will fully block it.
I can't reinstall a small stupid clock app I've found once (it had decimal, French revolutionary, hex, Roman format, star trek time and date) on my iPhone because it's no longer listed in library nor store itself and I didn't ever included it in backups.
It's buried on iPad 1 that cannot boot any more.
BTW The stores requirements are not really about minimum OS version of the phone, but minimum SDK version of the build chain. It's often possible to have secure code path for new OS and the legacy code path for old OS, but in practice it can be burdensome sometimes.
> longer availability of operating system updates, at least 5 years from the date the last unit model is sold
Those do exist, but I doubt they much adopted in Southern Europe, outside the packages that include mobile phones, Internet and cable TV together, and not everyone is into them either.