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 7 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 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well yes, that's where the innovation happened. Collecting fines based on regulation without innovation is easy street.

▲

matchbok3 4 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 2 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 7 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 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In that context it seems like "specialized" means "not commercially available", no?

▲

ineedasername 8 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 8 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 7 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 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> without requiring […] thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product. No heat or solvents required. Sounds good.
	▲	mminer237 6 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.