| ▲ | 999900000999 10 hours ago |
| >The regulation states that batteries must be removable using ‘commercially available’ tools This is doing a lot of work here. There's enough wiggle room for this to be absolutely meaningless. Anything short of I can slide off the back cover and maybe unscrew two or three screws to replace the battery means that a lot of people are going to end up not being able to replace the batteries. |
|
| ▲ | Clamchop 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The rest of that same sentence, " – and that if specialised tools are required, they must be provided free of charge when the phone or tablet is purchased," seems to mitigate that concern, no? I suppose it hinges on what the test for a "specialized tool" is. |
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | EU regulatory bodies haven’t been as blindly sycophantic towards megacorporations in terms of allowing them to skirt by rules set forth by their legislatures, so I would be more optimistic than if this were a development in US law. | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well yes, that's where the innovation happened. Collecting fines based on regulation without innovation is easy street. | |
| ▲ | matchbok3 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If people wanted replaceable batteries in the US, companies would sell them. There's big conspiracy here. They just don't matter to most people. And this regulation is really bad and will harm innovation for very little to no value. | | |
| ▲ | gf000 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The free market only works when you have sufficient competition. The phone market is absolutely not trivial to enter, so your first sentence is plain and simply false. Also, given that iphones almost already pass the requirements, where is the harm to innovation? |
|
| |
| ▲ | 999900000999 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can buy a soldering kit for 100$ USD. That doesn't mean normal people are going to be able to use them. I'd rather force larger companies to offer battery replacement at cost + shipping. I have no real interest and opening up my own devices and messing with batteries, but I have no problem paying the manufacturer $100 for service. | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In that context it seems like "specialized" means "not commercially available", no? | | |
| ▲ | ineedasername 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Toss: "technically you can purchase a new phone with non-specialist tool 'cash' so we feel no need to provide anything at all" | |
| ▲ | varispeed 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Specialised as in created specifically for swapping battery of that specific phone? As in you cannot do it with a generic commercially available tool (e.g. a screwdriver) | | |
| ▲ | troupo 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Quote from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C... --- start quote --- Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 states that a 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. Guidance on tool types can be drawn from standard EN 45554:2020e (2). In the context of the assessment of a product’s ability to be repaired, reused and upgraded, this standard uses the following classification groups: (i) basic tools (including
those provided with the product as a spare part) or no tools; (ii) product-group specific tools; (iii) commercially available
tools; and (iv) proprietary tools. The concept of commercially available tools mentioned in Article 11 comprises the categories of basic tools or no tools and of commercially available tools as per EN 45554:2020e. The concept of specialised tools laid down in the Regulation refers to product-group specific tools that are not available for purchase by the general public but are not protected by patents either. Article 11 requires that any such specialised tool that
might be necessary to have a portable battery removed and replaced is provided free of charge with the product into which the battery is incorporated. As per EN 45554:2020e, proprietary tools refer to tools not available for purchase by the general public, or for which any applicable patent are not available for license under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Such tools should not be
needed to remove portable batteries --- start quote --- (I fully expect literally no one on HN to spend even a second looking for and reading the relevant texts, and complain about the law being vague or impossible to implement or something) | | |
| ▲ | fainpul 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > without requiring […] thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product. No heat or solvents required. Sounds good. | |
| ▲ | mminer237 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I did actually look for the text for several minutes but couldn't find it anywhere. Thanks for doing what the news apparently couldn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jahnu 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe. Maybe not. If my local phone and phone accessories shop can do it for little money in 15 minutes then the current calculus changes for a heck of a lot of people. |
| |
| ▲ | ranger_danger 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Isn't that already the case though? | | |
| ▲ | Aachen 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No. I can't find a legit battery for my Samsung phone, only forgeries and "compatible with"s. Local repair shop said they could put a new OEM battery into this 4yo second-hand phone So I pay them and they do it. The result: - back cover becomes rather loose while it's warm e.g. from fast charging or a hot day out. No longer waterproof - the battery is no better than the original and is (2y later now) degrading faster than the original. If you ask a lot of it, the last 35% are gone within minutes. I think it's a knock-off battery but that the repair person doesn't know that If there had been commercially available repair parts and tool access, neither would have been a problem and I could just have done it myself My mom has the same model and sent hers in to the manufacturer for a battery swap. Took a while and cost half the price of the phone (since it was a 2yo second-hand at that time). That could have been much faster, even if the manufacturer is free to set the same steep prices A colleague got their phone back from Google for some repair last week, I don't remember if screen or battery swap. He asked and they said it wouldn't be reset. He put a sticker on it not to wipe the device. They wiped the device. He's now trying to piece together what's in various backup files that Android allows making. Fun fun fun. Also not necessary if you, or your techy nephew, can just do it at home --- The requirement for commercially availability of repair is so much better than the current state of what repair places can/are offering | | |
| ▲ | vladvasiliu 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the supply chain is pretty broken. I had just about the same experience as you with an iPhone 7 a few years back. I booked my replacement through Apple's website, so I was pretty confident I wouldn't get scammed. The new battery started bulging in less than two years, to the point that there was a serious gap between the screen and the body. It was clearly worse than the battery that came with my refurbished (!) phone, which never did that; it just couldn't hold a decent charge anymore. I won't even go into the absolutely ridiculous experience I had with the repair shop, like not honoring booked times and whatnot and having me wait in line for ages, both to drop off and pick up my phone. My current phone has lost some of its battery health as reported by the OS, but still gives me over a day of use, but when the time comes to fix it, I'll go directly to Apple. | | |
| ▲ | Aachen 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Same with laptops btw. I once caught a seller where the webpage and sticker said 5200 mAh but acpi -i reported 4400 mAh. They provided a replacement free of charge, presumably their supplier scammed them in turn (it was a small local webshop), but that replacement also wasn't great even if now the chip reported the expected capacity. Never once have I had good experiences with replacement batteries, I really wonder what they do with the originals to make them so vastly superior Also quite noticeable that the laptop battery market became much smaller once the batteries became an internal component (around 2015) that you can't see without opening it up completely. These also used to be behind a slider or two People don't dare unscrew electronics, even if it's about as trivial as replacing a light bulb in a fixture that requires removing a screw. With phones having the battery inside as well now, not above the sim tray for example, I wonder how much such legislation is going to help the average person |
|
| |
| ▲ | jahnu 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Last time I checked I’d have to leave my phone for a couple of days and the glue factor meant they wouldn’t guarantee it would come back perfectly. My assumption is this might make it a more trivial change. | | |
| ▲ | zarzavat 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't see what change they can make, at least to an iPhone. The glue is necessary for water resistance. | | |
| ▲ | Aachen 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There were models that were both waterproof and not glued (the only tools needed for a battery swap were the replacement battery and opposable thumbs). I never had/tested one myself though, this is just going off of the manufacturer's claims and IP (ingress protection) certification | | |
| ▲ | vladvasiliu 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I used to have a Galaxy S5, the model that usually comes up in these discussions. Now, I never went and threw it in a swimming pool, or pressure washed it, or whatever other ridiculous test you may come up with. But I did attach it to my motorbike's handlebars and rode around under heavy rain on more occasions than I care to remember. It was often drenched to the point that the map on the screen was basically illegible without stopping and wiping off the water. But it never skipped a beat. Basically, I was the limiting factor and would eventually give up and find some hotel with a hot shower to pass the night. | | |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So why can't I buy the glue? If it is a special glue that needs to be heated (or something), I should be able to make/buy an oven the does the cure procedures. | |
| ▲ | ineedasername 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Glue is not required. Gaskets and other methods exist. | | | |
| ▲ | phoronixrly 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Necessary? Gaskets and o-rings haven't been invented yet? | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They have, and people preferred smaller phones. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People didn't prefer shit. This is a supply-driven market, vendors put out whatever they want, and we deal with it. | | | |
| ▲ | krs_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And then they got larger again. | | | |
| ▲ | troupo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They have, and people preferred smaller phones. Are these smaller phones in room with use right now? Where can I buy an iPhone 8-sized iPhone? Or an iPhone 4-sized iPhone? The only ones who "preferred" "smaller" aka thinner phones are Apple with their psychotic "it's thinner again" yearly presentations. |
| |
| ▲ | zarzavat 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why waste space for gaskets and o-rings when you can already get the battery changed out while you wait with glue? Glue is clearly the superior method, which is why almost the entire market has adopted it. Heat pads exist even in the most basic repair shops. It's not advanced technology, no need to over-engineer it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SkeuomorphicBee 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My last phone was all glued and the entry point was the screen. The repair guy said there was a 50% chance the screen would break in trying to unglue it so it was not worth the try. It was a shame, it was a decent phone killed prematurely by a faulty battery. | |
| ▲ | walrus01 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are a number of phone designs that require special heating apparatus and very careful prying tools to get the back case off. And then extremely careful application of new glue to reassemble. Basically the whole thing is glued together at the factory. Google "phone heating pad for repair" for some examples... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fy20 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Everyone is thinking Apple is the target, but they are actually one of the better companies with this. You can buy first-party replacement parts, tools are available. If you take a look at Chinese or sometimes even Samsung phones it's basically impossible to get replacement parts and if you do it may need other parts like the glass back to be replaced as it's impossible to remove it without breaking it. |
|
| ▲ | ricardobayes 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That reads true. While replaceability is definitely a good thing, but whether it will end up being a good thing for the average user (and not lead to some further price hikes in the EU market) remains to be seen. |
|
| ▲ | red_admiral 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I presume it means "don't even try doing the printer ink DRM thing". |
|
| ▲ | napolux 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| better than glued. |
| |
| ▲ | mminer237 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Heat guns and pryers are commercially available. I don't think this will change anything there. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That is a very American view of law that has burned American companies again and again. In EU law, the intent matters, not the letter of the law. No silly loophole lawyering. To quote: >When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation). This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism. Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993... |
|
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And lose water resistance… |
